Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T05:16:05.228Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jewish Traditions and Familial Roman Values in Philo's De Abrahamo 245–254*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2016

Atar Livneh
Atar Livneh*
Affiliation:
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In De Abrahamo, Philo exegetes selected episodes from the biblical Abraham cycle. These include the account of Sarah's death recorded in Gen 23. Interpreting this narrative literally, Philo expands it by introducing an encomium to the matriarch (Abr. 245–254). This exemplifies her virtuous character by illustrating how she sought an offspring for Abraham through her servant Hagar (see Gen 16).

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 109 , Issue 4 , October 2016 , pp. 536 - 549
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 2016 

In De Abrahamo, Philo exegetes selected episodes from the biblical Abraham cycle. These include the account of Sarah's death recorded in Gen 23. Interpreting this narrative literally, Philo expands it by introducing an encomium to the matriarch (Abr. 245–254). This exemplifies her virtuous character by illustrating how she sought an offspring for Abraham through her servant Hagar (see Gen 16).

Philo's reworking of this incident has been examined on various occasions. Noting the way in which he alters the biblical source, Dorothy Sly concludes that in Philo's text Sarah becomes “more self-effacing than she appears in the Bible.”Footnote 1 In her recent study of this text, on the other hand, Maren Niehoff convincingly demonstrates that Philo magnifies Sarah's role. His portrayal of Sarah as mastering her emotions corresponds to the Greco-Roman ideal of “self-restraint” (ἐγκράτεια).Footnote 2 She also explores the philosophical background of the words Philo ascribes to Sarah—“the purpose for which. . . nature formed the partnership of man and wife, the birth of children, has not been fulfilled” (Abr. 249).Footnote 3

Herein I wish to adduce further traces of the influence of Greco-Roman values on Philo's portrayal of the matriarch and her married life.Footnote 4 One of the key texts in which Greco-Roman conventions can be seen in this passage is the encomium. Inserted following Sarah's death, its placement suggests that its praise of Sarah should be read against the background of Roman funerary eulogies.Footnote 5

The practice of delivering orations in honor of distinguished deceased women was common among the Roman elite of Philo's day (ca. 15 BCE–45 CE). Augustus (r. 27 BCE–14 CE), for example, delivered a eulogy in honor of his grandmother (Suetonius, Aug. 8.1) and later his sister (Dio, Hist. 54.35.4).Footnote 6 Latin epitaphs in honor of women from the late republican and early imperial periods also exemplify this custom.Footnote 7 Intended to cast the deceased in a favorable light, they frequently adduce traditional virtues.Footnote 8 In conjunction with the portrayal of exemplary wives in Latin literature, this testimony attests to the influence of Greco-Roman concepts and conventions on Philo's praise of Sarah.Footnote 9

Sarah's Love for Her Husband

Abr. 245–254 presents Sarah as a model on the basis of her conduct.Footnote 10 Herein, Philo stresses her “love for [her] husband” (φιλανδρία). While the biblical texts do not customarily depict this theme, it is common in Greek and Latin epitaphs.Footnote 11 Thus, for example, a Greek tomb inscription from Patara praises a wife for her “incomparable love for husband” (φιλανδρία ἀσύγκριτος).Footnote 12 A Latin epitaph from Rome similarly lauds a certain Claudia for loving “her husband in her heart.”Footnote 13 Various literary sources likewise reflect the ideal of the loving wife—such as Dionysius of Halicarnassus's Antiquitates Romanae (late first century BCE), which depicts Lucretia as a “woman, who. . . loved her husband as becomes a good wife” (4.82.1).Footnote 14

Philo's portrayal of Sarah clearly reflects this Greco-Roman convention. The encomium opens with the statement that “she gave numberless proofs for her wifely love” (Abr. 245), concluding with another reference to the same trait: “Abraham with increased admiration for the wifely love, which never grew old and was showing itself anew. . . took the mate whom she had approved” (Abr. 253). These two indications allude to Sarah's wifely love as demonstrated by her accompanying him on all his journeys (Abr. 245–246; see also Gen 11:31–13:1, 20:1–18) and her suggestion that Abraham “consort” with her maid (Abr. 247–254; see also Gen 16).Footnote 15

“In Good Times and in Bad” (Abr. 245–246)

As noted above, the first section of the encomium to Sarah adduces her accompaniment of Abraham on his journeys as evidence of her love for her husband: “Everywhere and always she was at his side, leaving him at no place or time, truly a partner in life and life's events” (Abr. 246).Footnote 16 Philo cites three examples to illustrate this fact. When the couple left Ur for Canaan (Abr. 245; cf. Gen 11:31–12:5), he notes that Sarah made a great sacrifice in forsaking her homeland and kinsfolk on behalf of her husband.Footnote 17 He then speaks of their “continual wanderings on a foreign soil, one after another, and privation in famine” (Abr. 245)—an obvious allusion to their travels through Egypt and Gerar (see Gen 12:10–20, 20:1–18). Finally, he observes that Sarah also accompanied Abraham on his military campaigns (Abr. 245).

This last detail—which, in contrast to the earlier two examples, is not drawn from the biblical text—clearly reflects contemporary Roman familial values and realities.Footnote 18 Augustus, who introduced legislation to promote fertility and family stability, also fostered these values by “establishing a pattern of keeping members of the family together.”Footnote 19 His own granddaughter, Agrippina the Elder (14 BCE–37 CE), who is praised as “the peerless pattern of ancient virtues” (Tacitus, Ann. 3.4.1), was her husband Germanicus's constant companion on his campaigns.Footnote 20 This practice—initially limited to the imperial family—was subsequently extended to the senatorial ranks during Tiberius's reign (14–37 CE).Footnote 21

The influence of Roman thought on Philo's portrayal of Sarah is further reflected in his statement that “everywhere and always she was at his side. . . resolved to share alike the good and ill. She did not, like some other women, run away from misadventures and lie ready to pounce on pieces of good luck, but she accepted her portion of both with all alacrity as belonging and suitable for a wedded wife” (Abr. 246).Footnote 22 This is a variation on a formula depicting ideal married life. Augustus, for example, asks rhetorically: “For is there anything better than a chaste [σώφρων] wife. . . one to gladden you in health, to tend you in sickness; to be your partner in good fortune, to console you in misfortune. . .?” (Dio, Hist. 56. 3.3).Footnote 23

Like Augustus, Philo accentuates the wife's contribution to her successful marriage by stressing her fidelity to her husband. This theme is popular in contemporary and later epigraphic and literary Roman sources. The so-called Laudatio Turiae—a Roman tomb inscription dated to the late first century BCE dedicated to a wife whom scholars refer to as Turia—details the numerous ways in which she supported her persecuted husband.Footnote 24 In a passage devoted to wifely fidelity, Valerius Maximus, active during Tiberius's reign, says that, “despite the very close watch her mother Julia was keeping on her so that she would not follow her husband to Sicily (he was Lentulus Cruscellio, proscribed by the triumvirs), [Sulpicia] nevertheless put on slave's clothing and. . . fled secretly and went to him” (6.7.3).Footnote 25 Pliny the Younger (61/62–113 CE) similarly extols women who shared their husbands’ (political) misfortune, such as Arria the Elder, who begged the soldiers to allow her to join her spouse when he was taken to Rome for trial. Her request being refused, “she then hired a small fishing smack, and the great ship sailed with her following in her tiny boat” (Ep. 3.16).Footnote 26 Like the praiseworthy Roman matrons of Philo's day, Sarah thus proved her fidelity to Abraham by following him “always and everywhere” and by standing by his side “in good and in bad.”

Sarah's Search for a Child through Hagar (Abr. 247–254)

Sarah's offering of Hagar to Abraham constituting the “clearest proof” of her virtue (Abr. 247) in Philo's view, he devotes a significant section of the encomium to a retelling of this episode (Abr. 247–254). His retelling of Gen 16 presents Sarah in a much more favorable light than the biblical source, describing her as a selfless spouse motivated by deep concern for her husband and the continuation of his line.Footnote 27 Not jealous of Hagar, she never treats her harshly.Footnote 28 Philo's need to transform the biblical source so significantly indicates that he did not regard the Genesis account as providing sufficient evidence of Sarah's virtue. Why, then, did he decide that this episode constituted the “clearest proof” of her wifely attributes? The answer appears to lie in his combination of Jewish traditions on the one hand with Roman conventions on the other.

The Influence of Jewish Exegetical Traditions on Philo's Retelling of Genesis 16

One of the well-known Jewish exegetical principles used to interpret Scripture from antiquity onwards is the notion of “juxtaposition” ( ), or adducing the meaning of the biblical text from the fact that two subjects are addressed side by side. In the case of the Abraham cycle a close thematic relation was thus assumed to exist between the story of Sarah's wanting Abraham to have a child through Hagar and the preceding pericope. Ishmael's birth being perceived as the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham of an heir (Gen 15:1–6), Sarah's presentation of Hagar to Abraham is understood as the way in which the divine plan would be fulfilled.Footnote 29 This tradition is attested in two other early sources. Immediately after his retelling of Gen 15, the author of Jubilees (second century BCE) notes that “Abram. . . believed that he would have descendants, but she [Sarai] continued not to have a child. Sarai advised her husband Abram and said to him: ‘Go in to my Egyptian slave-girl Hagar; perhaps I will build up descendants [lit.: seed] for you from her’” (Jub. 14:21–22).Footnote 30 This text juxtaposes Gen 15:6 (“And he believed the Lord” [NRSV])—the conclusion of Abraham's plea for a child—with Gen 16:1–2, thereby creating a link between the request and Sarah's offer of Hagar to Abraham.Footnote 31 Josephus (37–ca. 100 CE), who also links these two episodes, places his retelling of Gen 15:1–6 immediately prior to Sarah's suggestion that Abraham have a son through her maid (Gen 16:2).Footnote 32

Philo expresses the connection between Gen 15 and 16 in a similar fashion. In Abr. 247–254 he knits (paraphrases of) verses from Gen 15:1–6 into the reworking of Gen 16. Here, Sarah's statement, “And if the prayers for the birth of children are answered. . .” (Abr. 250), is inspired by Gen 15:2–3, which reports Abraham's request for a child.Footnote 33 Philo also alludes to Gen 15:1–6 in Abr. 252: “We have much substance and abundance of wealth, not on the usual scale of immigrants, for in this we now exceed those of the native inhabitants, who are noted for their prosperity. But no heir or successor has appeared.” This statement reflects another Jewish tradition. Herein, God's promise to Abraham that “your reward shall be very great” (Gen 15:1 [NRSV]) is understood to refer to Abraham's enormous wealth. This pledge can mean nothing to Abraham, however, if he has no son to inherit it (see Gen 15:2–3).Footnote 34 The Genesis Apocryphon (ca. first century BCE) also reflects this exegetical motif in its reworking of Gen 15:1–3:

After these things God appeared to Abram in a vision, and said to him: “. . . Your wealth and your property will increase enormously." Abram said, “My Lord God, I have wealth and property in great abundance, yet what are all [th]ese things to me while I, when I die, will go stripped bare without children. One of my household servants will receive my inheritance.” (1QapGen XX, 27–33)Footnote 35

The Influence of Roman Conventions on Philo's Retelling of Genesis 16

While the Jewish exegetical tradition linking Gen 15 and 16 explains why Philo chooses to appeal to Gen 16 in order to demonstrate Sarah's virtue, this choice also appears to have been influenced by a contemporary Roman convention.Footnote 36 In the Laudatio Turiae (hereafter LT), Turia's husband praises his barren wife for the steps she took to ensure offspring for her husband. Turia “proposed a divorce outright and offered [her husband] to yield their house free to another's woman fertility” (LT, right-hand col. 31–32).Footnote 37 In contrast to Abraham, Turia's husband did not take his wife up on her offer. The legal specifications of her plan also differ from Philo's (and the antecedent biblical) account of Sarah's scheme.Footnote 38 Several striking similarities nonetheless exist between the Philonic retelling of Gen 16 and the Latin tomb inscription. Both exemplify the wife's virtue by referring in a eulogy to the fact that while the couple had a long and harmonious marriage the wife was barren for a lengthy period. According to Philo,

Being childless and barren and fearing lest the house beloved of God should be left entirely desolate, she [Sarah] came to her husband and said: “Long have we lived together well pleasing to each other. But the purpose for which we ourselves came together. . .—the birth of children—has not been fulfilled, nor is there any future hope of it, through me at least who am now past the age.” (Abr. 247–248)

Turia's husband similarly refers to their “well-known conformity of sentiment [conc[or]dia nostra]” (LT, right-hand col. 34; cf. left-hand col. 27–28), also recording that “we did wish to have children, who had for a long time been denied to us by an envious fate” (LT, right-hand col. 26–27).Footnote 39 Realizing that they were likely never to have children, both Sarah and Turia began worrying that their infertility would prevent their husbands from becoming fathers. Sarah says to Abraham, “But do not share my childlessness, and do not keep yourself from becoming what you can be, a father, because of your kindness toward me” (Abr. 249). Turia's husband similarly notes, “When you despaired of your ability to have children and grieved over my childlessness, you became anxious lest by retaining you in marriage I might lose all hope of having children and be distressed for that reason” (LT, right-hand col. 31–32).Footnote 40 Turia's willingness to “yield our house free to another's woman's fertility” and choose another woman “worthy and suitable” for her husband goes hand in hand with an affirmation that she would regard any issue of such a union as “joint and as though her own” (LT, right-hand col. 33–37). Sarah likewise tells Abraham,

I shall not be backward to lead to you a bride who will supply what is lacking in myself. And if the prayers for the birth of children are answered, the offspring will be yours in full parenthood, but surely mine also by adoption. . . . Take, if you will, my handmaiden, a slave in the body, but free and nobly born in the spirit, proved and tested by me for many years from the day when she was first brought to my house—an Egyptian by race but Hebrew by her course of life. (Abr. 250–251)

Finally, both women also won their husbands’ esteem by their actions: Philo declares that “Abraham, with increased admiration for the wifely love that never grew old and was ever showing itself anew and for her. . . care for the future took the mate whom she had approved” (Abr. 253), while Turia's husband wonders rhetorically, “What could be more worthy of commemoration and praise than your devotion to my interests: when I could not have children from yourself, you wanted. . . to provide me with offspring by my marriage to another woman” (LT, right-hand col. 48).Footnote 41

While no reason exists to assume that Philo was aware of the tombstone erected in honor of Turia, the affinities between the two texts suggest that they employ a similar model or rest on a convention according to which a wife demonstrates her fidelity by ensuring that her husband is not left without offspring to carry on his line.Footnote 42 As the Laudatio Turiae indicates, this model/convention was employed in tomb inscriptions during Philo's own day. This epitaph therefore sheds light not only on Philo's choice of the story of Sarah and Hagar to demonstrate the matriarch's virtuous character but also on his setting of Gen 16 in the context of Sarah's death.

Philo's representation of the matriarch's conduct as resembling that of an exemplary Roman wife suggests that he regarded Jewish and Roman familial values as closely paralleling one another. His emphasis on Sarah's role within the divine plan, however, demonstrates that despite their affinities Jewish wives differed in at least one significant respect from their Roman counterparts.

Sarah and Abraham's Long and Harmonious Marriage

In addition to his emphasis on Sarah's fulfillment of her spousal role, Philo suggests that the couple's conjugal relations are similarly praiseworthy. Sarah thus declares: “Long have we lived together well pleasing to each other” (Abr. 248). While the chronological indication is in accord with the datum given in Gen 16:3, the expression as a whole is formulaic, echoing ideal depictions of married life in contemporary Latin sources.Footnote 43 Thus, for example, Turia's husband states: “We were fortunate to see our marriage last without disharmony for fully 40 years” (LT, left-hand col. 27–28). An inscription from Pisa is similarly dedicated to “Scribonia Hedone, with whom I lived 18 years without a quarrel.”Footnote 44 Pliny the Younger writes that his friend Macrinus “lost his wife. . . after they had lived together for thirty-nine years without a quarrel or misunderstanding” (Ep. 8.5).Footnote 45

This common formula reflects the Roman ideal of companionate marriage, a theme explicitly discussed in the discourses of the first-century Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus: “In marriage there must be complete companionship and concern for each other on the part of both husband and wife, in health and in sickness and at all times” (What is the Chief End of Marriage? 13a).Footnote 46 Philo's designation of Sarah as “truly [Abraham's] partner in life and life's events” (κοινωνὸς ὄντως βίου καὶ τ ν κατὰ τὸν βίον πραγμάτων, Abr. 246) seems to express a similar notion.Footnote 47 Indeed, elsewhere Philo claims that praiseworthy marriages are those characterized by true “partnership” (κοινωνία). He thus notes that, in order to be “blameless but worthy of the highest praise,” Moses instituted that they should “lead both husbands and wives to cherish self-control [σωφροσύνη] and domesticity and unanimity, agreeing with one another in word and deed to make the name ‘partnership’ a reality securely founded on truth” (Spec. 1.138).Footnote 48

Philo suggests that engaging in a companionate marriage is the practical meaning of the Mosaic law. His depiction of Sarah's partnership with Abraham (Abr. 246) thus represents the couple as acting in accordance with the divine will. It further implies that traditional Jewish values are in agreement with contemporary Roman principles of proper family life.Footnote 49

Philo's presentation of Abraham and Sarah's harmonious conjugal relationship is complemented by references to spousal attachment: just as the matriarch loved her husband, so was she “the darling of his [Abraham's] heart” (Abr. 245; cf. Abr. 253). This theme, too, has parallels in Greek and Roman texts.Footnote 50 A Greek inscription on Melite's tomb asserts: “You loved your husband Onesimus; he loved you in return.”Footnote 51 Latin inscriptions also praise married couples for their mutual affection. Aurelia is said to have “lived as a faithful wife to a faithful husband with affection equal to my own” while Furia Spec declares that she and her husband were bound together by equal love.Footnote 52

Conclusion

Abr. 245–254 constitutes a prime example of Philo's combination of scriptural exegesis and Jewish tradition with the adoption of Greco-Roman conventions and values. While he draws the setting of Sarah's death from the biblical text, he portrays her character via rhetorical conventions rooted in classical Greco-Roman culture devoted to lauding virtues and illustrating a person's virtues by examples of his or her deeds. The encomium focuses upon a woman/heroine, and, femininity being preeminently identified in the ancient world with the domestic sphere, Philo therefore first praises Sarah for the way in which she fulfilled her spousal role, presenting her as loving her husband. This virtue is commonly ascribed to deceased wives on Greek and Latin tombstones. Philo furnishes examples of conjugal affection in reference to various biblical accounts in which the texts under discussion give no evidence of it. He thus augments the record that she accompanied Abraham on his journeys with an extrabiblical addition illustrating her presence at his side during his military campaigns, for instance. Taken together, these depictions present Sarah as a loyal wife who followed her husband in good and in bad, a characterization that corresponds to the descriptions of praiseworthy wives in Roman literature and on tomb inscriptions from Philo's day.

The affinity between Philo's portrait of Sarah's selflessness and deep concern for Abraham's welfare and the description of the virtuous childless Turia also suggests that Philo was aware of the Roman convention/model regarding loyal infertile wives. His representation of Sarah as an exemplary Roman matron in her marriage to Abraham—characterized by mutual affection and goodwill—further reflects Greco-Roman ideals. His assertion in De specialibus legibus that a companionable marriage fulfills the Mosaic law suggests that he correlated the latter with the familial norms of the Roman elite of his day. This finds its epitome in his portrait of Sarah as an ancient Jewish matriarch whose wifely conduct is commensurate with Roman ideals.

Although Philo attributes traits of the ideal Roman wife to Sarah, his portrait of her in De Abrahamo suggests that he regards her as more than the typical Roman matron. Unlike the latter, however, Sarah recognizes Abraham's God and is thus motivated not only by her love and fidelity to her husband but also by her fear that “the house beloved of God should be left entirely desolate” (247 [italics added]). By incorporating a Jewish haggadic tradition, Philo stresses that Sarah played a significant role within the divine plan. The fact that he interweaves verses (or paraphrases of verses) from Gen 15:1–6 into the story of Sarah's search for a way to give Abraham a child indicates that, like the author of Jubilees before him, he assumes a close connection between the two pericopae, understanding Sarah's act as fulfilling the divine promise for a child.

Although the Roman matron evidently served Philo as a model, his characterization of Sarah as also possessing uniquely “Jewish” traits reflects his view of the ideal Jewish wife. This “dual nature” finds prime expression in Abr. 245–254. While this passage is dominated by conventions embodied in Roman female funeral eulogies in both stylistic and substantive terms, the examples demonstrating Sarah's virtues are drawn primarily from the biblical texts, Philo's retelling of these accounts also being influenced by traditions prevalent in Jewish circles.

Footnotes

*

I am indebted to Guy Darshan and Ariel Feldman for their enlightening comments on an earlier draft. Whatever errors remain are mine alone.

References

1 Sly's prominent interest lies in Philo's reconstruction of the power relations between Abraham and Sarah; see Sly, Dorothy, Philo's Perception of Women (Brown Judaic Studies 209; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990) 150 Google Scholar.

2 Since Philo regards the value of self-restraint as inherent in the Mosaic legislation, Sarah's deeds and words relating to her marriage are also in accordance with Jewish values: see Niehoff, Maren, “Mother and Maiden, Sister and Spouse: Sarah in Philonic Midrash,” HTR 97 (2004) 419–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; eadem, Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture (Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 86; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001) 94–110. As Niehoff notes, Philo's representation of Hagar as “a slave in the body but free and nobly born in the spirit . . . Egyptian by race but a Hebrew by her course of life” (Abr. 251) is fruitfully understood in light of Greek philosophy, Roman law, and Philo's broader conception of Jewish identity (Philo on Jewish Identity, 17–33). For the figure of Hagar in Abr. 245–254, see also Borgen, Peder, “Some Hebrew and Pagan Features in Philo's and Paul's Interpretation of Hagar and Ishmael,” in The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism (ed. idem and Giversen, Soren; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997) 151–64, esp. 153–56Google Scholar.

3 Niehoff, “Mother and Maiden,” 413–44, esp. 422; see also eadem, Philo on Jewish Identity, 99–102; Loader, William, Philo, Josephus, and the Testaments on Sexuality: Attitudes towards Sexuality in the Writings of Philo and Josephus and in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011) 61–65 Google Scholar and the earlier bibliography cited therein. Niehoff (“Mother and Maiden,” 429–44) also discusses the gap between Philo's representation of Sarah in De Abrahamo and his allegorical interpretation of her character in other treatises. While the latter is dictated by his philosophical conception of femininity as related to passivity and sensory perception, thereby representing Sarah as lacking feminine characteristics, the former seeks to portray her as a model for Jewish women, thus praising her for her wifely conduct (see below). For earlier discussions of the allegorical interpretation of Sarah in Philo's writings, see Sly, Philo's Perception of Women, 150–54; Wegner, Judith Romney, “Philo's Portrayal of Women—Hebraic or Hellenistic?,” in “Women Like This”: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World (ed. Levine, Amy-Jill; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991) 41–66 Google Scholar, esp. 54–56.

4 As a Jewish literary text written in a Hellenistic/Roman cultural and political environment, De Abrahamo must be considered from both these aspects. In addition to an analysis of the influence of his contemporary surroundings on Philo's representation of Sarah in light of the approaches adopted by Sly (Philo's Perception of Women), Wegner (“Philo's Portrayal of Women”), and Niehoff (“Mother and Maiden”), I thus also follow such scholars as Kugel in drawing attention to Jewish exegetical motifs: Kugel, James C., Traditions of the Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998)Google Scholar. See pp. 542–46 below.

5 See Abr. 247, which explicitly refers to the praise of Sarah as ἐγκώμιον (encomium, laudatory speech), as well as Weisser's discussion of the Greco-Roman rhetorical background of Abr. 245–261: Sharon Weisser, “Why does Philo Criticize the Stoic Ideal of Aphateia in On Abraham 257? Philo and Consolatory Literature,” CQ 62 (2012) 242–59, esp. 248–51. For the funeral-oration genre (laudatio funebris), see Durry, Marcel, Éloge funèbre d'une matrone romaine (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1950) xi–xliiiGoogle Scholar; Ochs, Donovan J., Consolatory Rhetoric: Grief, Symbol, and Ritual in the Greco-Roman Era (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1993) 104–11Google Scholar. All citations from De Abrahamo are adapted from Philo, On Abraham; On Joseph; On Moses (trans. F. H. Colson; vol. 6 of Philo; LCL 289; London: Heinemann, 1966) with some modifications. Significantly, Philo also inserts a eulogy to Joseph immediately after the indication of his death (Ios. 268–270). See also the influence of the Roman practice of delivering funerary orations on Josephus's retelling of the Bible: A.J. 4.327–331, 6.292–294, and 7.389–391; Feldman, Louis H., “Josephus’ Portrait of Saul,” HUCA 53 (1982) 45–99 Google Scholar, esp. 46–52.

6 Pomeroy, Sarah B., Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves (New York: Schocken, 1995) 182–83Google Scholar.

7 E.g., the Laudatio Turiae and the eulogy to Murdia (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum [CIL] 6.10230). See Horsfall, Nicholas, “Some Problems in the ‘Laudatio Turiae,’” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 30 (1983) 85–98 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 89–91. While Philo's extrabiblical encomium to Sarah reflects contemporary practices, it may also have been inspired by Gen 23:2 LXX—“And Abraam went to mourn for Sarah and to grieve” [NETS]. See also Tanḥ. Ḥayyē Śārāh 4, which depicts Abraham as praising Sarah as “the capable wife” (see Prov 31:10–31) on the occasion of her death.

8 For Latin epitaphs and writings as reflecting the attributes of the ideal Roman matron and her antagonist, the “wicked woman,” see Fischler, Susan, “Social Stereotypes and Historical Analyses: The Case of the Imperial Women at Rome,” in Women in Ancient Societies: An Illusion of the Night (ed. Archer, Léonie J., Fischler, Susan, and Wyke, Maria; Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan, 1994) 115–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Niehoff discusses the close affinities between Philo's construction of Jewish identity and contemporary Roman notions in detail, evincing that Philo's writings integrate the Jews “among the Roman elite of the world” (Philo on Jewish Identity, 110). While she also demonstrates the role Roman legalization plays in Philo's presentation of Ishmael as a bastard with no claim to Abraham's heritage (ibid., 22–28), my focus here lies on the correspondence between Philo's portrayal of Sarah and the ideal of the Roman matron. For general surveys of women in Greece and Rome, see Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves; Eva Cantarella, Pandora's Daughters: The Role and Status of Women in Greek and Roman Antiquity (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987). For the Roman conception of the ideal wife, see most recently Alison D. Jeppesen-Wigelsworth, “The Portrayal of Roman Wives in Literature and Inscriptions” (PhD diss., University of Calgary, 2010); Shelton, Jo-Ann, The Women of Pliny's Letters (London: Routledge, 2013) 15–42, 93–176Google Scholar.

10 The style of this passage thus resembles that of the composition as a whole. The latter lauds the virtues Abraham manifests in his conduct. In addition to the obvious stylistic parallel, substantive correspondences also exist: like the patriarch, Sarah is lauded for the difficulties she endured in moving from Ur (see Abr. 62–67, 85–87), her “self-restraint” also being analogous to Abraham's (see Abr. 253, 255–261): see Niehoff, “Mother and Maiden,” 419–23. Integrated into a description of Abraham's virtuous character, the encomium also functions as a further (indirect) way of extolling the patriarch. It likewise constitutes the first section of Philo's reworking of Gen 23, the second section of which praises Abraham for his self-restraint upon his wife's death (Abr. 255–261). In its immediate context, Sarah's merits also demonstrate the loss Abraham suffered in her death, thereby emphasizing the depths of the self-restraint he displayed on that occasion: see Sandmel, Samuel, Philo's Place in Judaism: A Study of Conceptions of Abraham in Jewish Literature (New York: Ktav, 1956) 135 Google Scholar; Weisser, “Philo and Consolatory Literature.” The praise for Sarah similarly extols the patriarch on the principle that “a virtuous wife is the crown of her husband” (Prov 12:4 NKJV). The glory (or disgrace) women reflect upon their husbands / male relatives is a common theme in Roman oratory and history: see Carlon, Jacqueline M., Pliny's Women (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009) 138–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fischler, “Social Stereotypes,” 127–30. For further direct praise of Sarah, see Abr. 93–94: “He had a wife distinguished greatly for her goodness of soul and beauty of body, in which she surpassed all the women of her time” (see Gen 12:11, 14).

11 For love and gender in the Bible, see Brenner, Athalya, The Intercourse of Knowledge: On Gendering Desire and “Sexuality” in the Hebrew Bible (Biblical Interpretation Series 26; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 8–30 Google Scholar; see also the praise of Leah following her death in Jub. 36:21–24—which, unlike Philo's eulogy of Sarah, follows the biblical tendency and makes no mention of her love for her husband, rather depicting her as honoring him: see Livneh, Atar, “Not at First Sight: Gender Love in Jubilees ,” JSP 23 (2013) 3–20 Google Scholar, esp. 13–16.

12 See Lattimore, Richmond, Themes in Greek and Roman Epitaphs (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1962) 292–93Google Scholar. This quite popular theme also recurs in later inscriptions: cf. Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (SEG) 2.521; CIL 6.11252.

13 CIL 12.1211 (Rome; 2nd cent. BCE). For Lattimore's translation, see Mary R. Lefkowitz and Maureen Fant, B., Women's Life in Greece and Rome: A Source Book in Translation (3rd ed.; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005) 16 §39Google Scholar. Cf. also CIL 12.1221, 5.7453, 6.11252, 29580, and 8.8123. In light of the above, it is clear that Philo attests to the Jewish adoption of the Hellenistic convention of the “loving wife”: note the epithet φίλανδρος (a lover of [her] husband) given to Jewish women in later Jewish epitaphs in Rome (Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum [CIJ] 166, 195). See Keener, Craig. S., Paul, Women, Wives: Marriage and Women's Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992) 166–67, 181Google Scholar.

14 See Dionysius of Halicarnassus, The Roman Antiquities (trans. Earnest Cary; 2 vols.; LCL 319 and 347; London: Heinemann, 1937–1939) 2:515–17. Depictions of loving wives are also extant in other genres, including epigrams and letters from a later period: cf. Martial, Epig. 4.75; Pliny, Ep. 4.19.

15 While the biblical text does not state that Sarah loved Abraham, the episodes Philo adduces as evidence of this virtue are based on the Abraham cycle. Genesis explicitly indicates that Sarah accompanied Abraham on some of his journeys and proposed that he have a child through Hagar (see pp. 540–46 below). The account of Sarah's death (Gen 23) thus functions in Abr. 245–254 as a “frame story” into which Philo inserts reworkings of various episodes from Gen 11–20. This technique of reworking and rearranging selected biblical pericopae is characteristic of Second Temple compositions known in scholarly circles as “Rewritten Bible” texts. The resemblance between Philo's literal biblical interpretation and the exegetical techniques typical of Rewritten Bible texts has been noted by various scholars: see Borgen, Peder, Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time (NovTSup 86; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 67–79 Google Scholar; Sterling, Gregory E., “The Interpreter of Moses: Philo of Alexandria and the Biblical Text,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Judaism (ed. Henze, Matthais; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012) 415–35Google Scholar, esp. 423–24; Damgaard, Finn, “Philo's Life of Moses as ‘Rewritten Bible,’” in Rewritten Bible after Fifty Years: Texts, Terms or Techniques? A Last Dialogue with Geza Vermes (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 166; ed. Zsengellér, József; Leiden: Brill, 2014) 233–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Steven D. Fraade, “Between Rewritten Bible and Allegorical Commentary: Philo's Interpretation of the Burning Bush,” in ibid., 221–32.

16 The translation here largely follows Niehoff, “Mother and Maiden,” 419. For a discussion of Sarah and Abraham's partnership see pp. 546–48 below and n. 52.

17 As Sly observes, a degree of tension exists between the retrospective depiction of the couple's immigration from Ur in the encomium and the literal interpretation of this pericope in Abr. 62–67, which fails to mention the fact that Sarah accompanied Abraham (Philo's Perception of Women, 147–48).

18 Like the biblical source, Philo's literal interpretation of Abraham's war against the kings makes no mention of Sarah's presence in the campaign: see Gen 14; Abr. 225–235.

19 Lex Julia (ca. 18 BCE) and lex Papia Poppaea (ca. 9 CE): see Shelton, Women of Pliny's Letters, 23. See also Dixon, Suzanne, The Roman Mother (London: Croom Helm, 1988) 71–103 Google Scholar; Fantham, Elaine et al., Women in the Classical World: Image and Text (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994) 294–306 Google Scholar and the earlier bibliography cited therein.

20 Suetonius, Cal. 7–9; Tacitus, Ann. 2.54. For the latter, see Tacitus, The Histories; The Annals (trans. John Jackson; 5 vols.; LCL 35, 111, 249, 312, and 322; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925–1937) 2:527.

21 During the republic, wives rarely accompanied their husbands to the provinces. The gradual change that took place in this respect was due both to Augustus's promotion of familial values and the fact that the duration of tours of duty in the provinces became longer from the early principate onwards; see Tacitus, Ann. 3.33–34; Marshall, Anthony J., “Tacitus and the Governor's Lady: A Note on Annals iii. 33–4,” Greece and Rome 2/22 (1975) 11–18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Raepsaet-Charlier, Marie-Thérèse, “Épouses et familles de magistrats dans les provinces romaines aux deux premiers siècles de l'Empire,” Historia 31 (1982) 56–69 Google Scholar; Rawson, Beryl, “The Roman Family,” in The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives (London: Croom Helm, 1986) 1–57, esp. 26–28Google Scholar; and Shelton, Women of Pliny's Letters, 23–26.

22 For the rhetorical device of praising a woman at the expense of other, unnamed women who act differently see Seneca, Helv. 16.3–5.

23 For the translation, see Dio, Roman History (trans. Earnest Cary; 9 vols.; LCL 32, 37, 53, 66, 82–83, and 175–77; London: Heinemann, 1914–1927) 7:7. For the formula see also the 1st-cent. philosopher Musonius Rufus: “In marriage there must be complete companionship and concern for each other on the part of both husband and wife, in health and in sickness and at all times” [δε δὲ ἐν γάμῳ πάντως συμβίωσίν τε ε ναι καὶ κηδεμονίαν ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικὸς περὶ ἀλλήλους, καὶ ἐρρωμένους καὶ νοσο ντας καὶ ἐν παντὶ καιρ ] (What is the Chief End of Marriage? 13a [italics added]). The edition and title of the passage follow Lutz, Cora E., Musonius Rufus, “The Roman Socrates” (ed. Bellinger, A. R.; Yale Classical Studies 10; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1947) 3–150 Google Scholar, esp. 88–89. For the translation see Lefkowitz and Fant, Women's Life in Greece and Rome, 54 §75.

24 Although Turia prepared a safe hiding place for her husband, provided for his needs during his flight, and begged for his recall to Rome (LT, right-hand col. 2a, 6a, 4), she did not follow her husband “always and everywhere.” This last theme does occur in later Roman literature, however: see below.

25 Lefkowitz and Fant, Women's Life in Greece and Rome, 23 §53. For loyal women who followed their husbands, see also the portrayal of Cornelia Metella in Plutarch, Pomp. 74.1–80.5.

26 See Pliny, Letters and Panegyricus (trans. Radice, Betty; 2 vols.; LCL 55 and 59; London: Heinemann, 1969)Google Scholar. For Pliny's portrayal of loyal heroic wives, see recently Jeppesen-Wigelsworth, Portrayal of Roman Wives, 173–80; Shelton, Women of Pliny's Letters, 15–42. For the theme of wifely fidelity, see also Martial, Epigr. 9.30. In contrast, in his satires (first quarter of the 2nd cent. CE) Juvenal mocks Roman wives for making excuses in order to avoid sailing with their husbands while enthusiastically accompanying their lovers (Sat. 6.83–113).

27 Sly, Philo's Perception of Women, 149–50. Pace Sly, Philo is not responsible for introducing the idea that the purpose of Sarah's offer is to enable Abraham to become a father rather than herself a mother: see LXX Gen 16:2; Niehoff, “Mother and Maiden,” 421 n. 26; and Loader, Philo, Josephus, and the Testaments, 151–52. Philo's reworking of the text nonetheless elaborates and emphasizes the theme of Sarah's concern for her husband's welfare (see Abr. 249–250).

28 According to Philo, Sarah declared: “I shall have no jealousy of another woman whom you will take not for unreasoning lust but fulfillment of nature's inevitable law” (Abr. 249); “but to avoid any suspicion of jealousy on my part, take, if you will, my handmaiden” (Abr. 251) (see also Niehoff, “Mother and Maiden,” 419–23).

29 Another tradition, based on the same exegetical principle, presupposes a chronological link between the two pericopae, dating the covenant between the pieces (Gen 15) in accord with the datum given in Gen 16:3: see 1QapGen XX, 27–28; 4Q225 2 I, 2; Fitzmyer, Joseph A., The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20): A Commentary (3rd ed.; Biblica et Orientalia 18/B; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2004) 253 Google Scholar; and Livneh, Atar, “How Long was Abraham's Sojourn in Haran? Traditions Regarding the Patriarch in Compositions from Qumran,” Meghillot 8 (2010) 193–210 Google Scholar, esp. 198–202 (Hebrew).

30 See James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 510–11; Scriptores aethiopici 87–88; Leuven: Peeters, 1989) 86.

31 In Jub. 14, Gen 15 and 16 are further presented as a single consecutive story, through a) Abraham's report of the divine revelation(s) to Sarah; and b) the rephrasing of Sarah's offer in words reminiscent of Gen 15:3: see Halpern-Amaru, Betsy, “The Portrait of Sarah in Jubilees,” in Jewish Studies in a New Europe: Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of Jewish Studies in Copenhagen 1994 under the Auspices of the European Association for Jewish Studies (ed. Haxen, Ulf, Trautner-Kromann, Hanne, and Salamon, Karen Lisa Goldschmidt; Copenhagen: C. A. Reitzel, 1998) 342–43Google Scholar; eadem, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 60; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 50–51. Philo's representation of Sarah's directive as advice (cf. Abr. 252 to Gen 16:2) constitutes an additional parallel with the Jubilean version of the story (see Jub. 14:22).

32 A.J. 1.186–187: “Being distressed at his wife's not becoming pregnant, he besought God to grant him offspring of a male child. When God encouraged him to be confident, as in all other things he had been led from Mesopotamia for his wellbeing, so also he would have children. Sarah, at God's command, caused him to lie down with one of her handmaidens, Agare by name, who was an Egyptian by race, so that he might procreate children by her” (trans. Feldman, Louis. H., Judean Antiquities 1–4: Translation and Commentary [ed. Mason, Steve; Leiden: Brill, 2000] 70–71)Google Scholar. Although Gen. Rab. 45:2 does not explicitly link Gen 15 and 16, it represents Sarah's act as being in accordance with God's will.

33 Philo's rewriting suggests that Sarah also prayed to God—further indication of her piety. Philo similarly hints that Sarah prayed with Abraham during their stay in Egypt (Abr. 95): see Gen. Rab. 45:4; Niehoff, “Mother and Maiden,” 423–26.

34 Interestingly, Philo's description of Abraham and Sarah as “immigrants” (μέτοικοι) in Abr. 252 is based on Gen 23:4: see Daniel-Nataf, Suzanne, Philo of Alexandria: Writings (5 vols.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1986–)Google Scholar 2:110 n. 148, 117 n. 176 (Hebrew) (translation and comments on De Abrahamo by Hava Shorr).

35 See Machiela, Daniel A., The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 13–17 (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 79; Leiden: Brill, 2009) 83–84 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In light of the parallel in the Genesis Apocryphon, it is not necessary to assume (pace Sandmel, Philo's Place in Judaism, 136) that the indication of Abraham's wealth is a contemporaneous allusion. Philo further stresses that Sarah's motivation for offering Hagar to Abraham was her fear “lest the house beloved of God should be left entirely desolate” (Abr. 247–248). Philo makes explicit reference to his reliance on a further exegetical tradition in Abr. 253: “Abraham . . . kept her [Hagar] . . . as the surest version of the story runs only till she became pregnant”: see Niehoff, “Mother and Maiden,” 422 n. 30.

36 Although Weisser notes the affinities between Philo's retelling of Gen 16 and the Laudatio Turiae, she does not analyze them in detail (“Philo and Consolatory Literature,” 249–50).

37 Translation of the Laudatio Turiae follows Wistrand, Erik Karl Hilding, The So-called Laudatio Turiae: Introduction, Text, Translation, Commentary (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 34; Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1976) 17–31 Google Scholar.

38 While Turia's offer accords with the fact that a wife's barrenness was typically a cause for divorce by consent in Rome, Gen 16 presents the attempt on the part of a sterile wife to have a child through her maid, a practice documented in ancient Near Eastern legislation. For the former, see, for example, Gardner, Jane F., Women in Roman Law and Society (London: Croom Helm, 1987) 81–95 Google Scholar; for the latter, see Speiser, E. A., Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 1964) 119–21Google Scholar.

39 For a description of the couple's marriage, see pp. 546–48 below.

40 While Sarah's despair of conceiving is explained by her old age (see Gen 17:17, 18:9–15; Abr. 111), Turia's loss of hope may be related to the fact that the various steps she took to remedy her barrenness failed: see Wistrand, The So-called Laudatio Turiae, 55; LT, right-hand col. 28–30.

41 According to Philo, Sarah won Abraham's esteem firstly due to her wifely love and then to her forethought. Turia is also said to have demonstrated the latter trait, although in a different context (LT, right-hand col. 58). The two texts also laud wifely fidelity in hard times, this being a general (and popular) theme rather than a specific association: see pp. 540–42 above.

42 Praise of barren women is however the exception, wives regularly being extolled for giving birth to children: see the epitaph of Pantheia ( Pleket, Harry W., Epigraphica 2: Texts on Social History of the Greek World [Leiden: Brill, 1969] 32–33 §20)Google Scholar and Claudia's epitaph (CIL 12.1211). The Laudatio Turiae is similarly unique in terms of its length, most epitaphs dedicated to women being much shorter and not containing any detailed narratives. For further discussion of the inscription's exceptional nature, see Jeppesen-Wigelsworth, Portrayal of Roman Wives, 211–16.

43 “So, after Abram had lived for ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her slave-girl, and gave her to her husband Abram as a wife” (Gen 16:3 NRSV). The chronological data in Genesis suggest that the couple had been married for at least ten years before Abraham “consorted” with Hagar, their marriage as a whole lasting at least sixty-two years (see also Gen 12:4–5, 16:16, 17:17, and 23:1).

44 CIL 11.1491 (Pisa; imperial period): see Lefkowitz and Fant, Women's Life in Greece and Rome, 206 §277. See also CIL 6.6984, 15606, 15581; Durry, Éloge funèbre d'une matrone romaine, 37; and Jeppesen-Wigelsworth, Portrayal of Roman Wives, 250–56.

45 See Fantham et al., Women in the Classical World, 318–21. The portrayal of Marcinus's marriage follows epithetical conventions: see Jeppesen-Wigelsworth, Portrayal of Roman Wives, 154–56. See also Pliny, Ep. 3.16. While the formula is prevalent in Latin sources from the imperial period, the ideal of harmonious marriage is ancient, occurring already in the Odyssey (6.180–185), which praises marriages that are characterized by “single-minded” (ὁμοφροσύνη) agreement. While Philo describes Amram and Jochebed's marriage in similar terms (Mos. 1.7), Abr. 245–254 uses different phraseology. The theme recurs—albeit with some terminological variations—in the discourses of the 1st-cent. Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus (see 13a) and the contemporary Greek epitaph for Pythion and Epicydilla (SEG 17.427 [Thassos]). Harmonious marriages are denoted by the term concordia in Latin texts: see Tacitus, Ann. 3.33; Agr. 6.1; and Challet, Claude-Emmanuelle Centlivres, Like Man, Like Woman: Roman Women, Gender Qualities, and Conjugal Relationship at the Turn of the First Century (Bern: Lang, 2013) 107–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Lovén, Lena Larsson, “ Coniugal Concordia: Marriage and Marital Ideals on Roman Funerary Monuments,” in Ancient Marriage in Myth and Reality (ed. Lovén, Lena Larsson and Strömberg, Agneta; Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010) 204–20Google Scholar, esp. 213–17.

46 See Lefkowitz and Fant, Women's Life in Greece and Rome, 54 §75.

47 See also Abr. 256, which refers to Sarah's death: “He [Abraham] had lost his life-long partner” (ἀποβαλὼν κοινωνὸν το σύμπαντος βίου) (Weisser, “Philo and Consolatory Literature,” 250 n. 39). For a further discussion of Philo's use of the term κοινωνός here and elsewhere see Niehoff, “Mother and Maiden,” 419–20. Unlike Philo, Musonius Rufus expresses the idea of marital partnership through a different term: see n. 23 above.

48 The translation follows Philo, On the Decalogue; On the Special Laws, Books 1–3 (trans. Colson, F. H.; vol. 7 of Philo; LCL 320; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1937) 178 Google Scholar with some modifications; Sly notes but does not discuss the relevance of Spec. 1.138 to Abr. 245–246 (Philo's Perception of Women, 148).

49 As Sandmel (Philo's Place in Judaism, 135) and Niehoff (“Mother and Maiden,” 419–23) note, both Abraham and Sarah maintain self-control in their marital lives. Here, too, they represent the exemplary marriage depicted in Spec. 1.138 and contemporary Roman ideals. See also nn. 2, 9, and 10.

50 For a discussion of the relation between concordia (harmony, unity) and amor (love, passion, fondness) within the marriage bond in Latin literature, see Centlivres Challet, Like Man, Like Woman, 132–50.

51 Carmina epigraphica graeca (CEG) 530 (4th cent. BCE, Athens; see Lefkowitz and Fant, Women's Life in Greece and Rome, 180 §237).

52 For the former, see CIL 12.1221 (1st cent. CE; Lefkowitz and Fant, Women's Life in Greece and Rome, 181 §239). For the latter, see CIL 6.18817 (1st–2nd cents. CE, Rome); see also 6.29580. As Lattimore (Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs, 277) and Jeppesen-Wigelsworth (Portrayal of Roman Wives, 218–29) point out, the theme of spousal love / devotion is more common in later Latin epitaphs (2nd cent.). Although the Laudatio Turiae does not use the same formula, it nonetheless constitutes the most detailed epigraphic description of mutual devotion between a husband and wife: the husband rejected Turia's offer of divorce and bearing a child through another woman because he would not consider separating from his wife (LT, right-hand col. 40–47). For a discussion and examples of spousal affection in literary sources, see Balsdon, J. P. V. D., Roman Women: Their History and Habits (London: Bodley Head, 1974) 200–208 Google Scholar; Lefkowitz, Mary R., “Wives and Husbands,” in Women in Antiquity (ed. McAuslan, Ian and Walcot, Peter; New York: Oxford University Press, 1996) 67–82 Google Scholar; and Centlivres Challet, Like Man, Like Woman, 132–50.