2. Wealth, Honour and Gender

Throughout the Graeco-Roman world, wealth by itself did not determine social status, but it was an important component of one's social standing.Footnote ¹⁰ Careful attention was paid to the manner in which a person displayed his or her wealth so as not to be perceived as overly attached to it, and being affluent required a balance with various virtues, especially generosity, which for some writers justified the possession of wealth in the first place.Footnote ¹¹ A long tradition of literature satirizes the wealthy who simply indulge in their own appetites, seeking further gain at the expense of others, and growing portly and lazy. Perhaps the most vivid example is that of Aristophanes, who describes ‘Wealth's people’ as ‘fat rogues with big bellies and dropsical legs, whose toes by the gout are tormented’.Footnote ¹² Indulgence and greed were associated with the rich if they did not provide benefits and services in the form of funding associations, providing land or other public works. The wealthy were often considered immoral, especially in the context of a limited good society, for their riches meant that others were cheated or exploited, and thus if the rich did not share their wealth, their greed would be resented and ridiculed.Footnote ¹³ A text that clearly illustrates such attitudes is Jas 5.1–6, in which the rich (οἱ πλούσιοι) appear in a heap of rotten, moth-eaten clothes, along with a pile of rusty metals that serve as evidence against their crimes.Footnote ¹⁴ James is ironic here, for the gold and silver, which the rich have hoarded while they were living sumptuously (τρυϕάω), will now consume (ϕάγɛται) their flesh like fire.

Mediterranean collectivist societies were strongly ocular, people had little privacy, and sources indicate general anxiety about how one was observed in public. A person's identity depended upon how he or she was perceived by the group, and honour and shame were paramountFootnote ¹⁵ as humans constantly manoeuvred to preserve or increase their honour while at the same time remaining aware of the need to maintain a sense of shame. This balancing act varied according to status and gender, for women could seek and possess honour in different ways from men,Footnote ¹⁶ and although the aristocracy often viewed slaves as without honour, there is evidence that communities of honour existed at lower levels of society, including among slaves.Footnote ¹⁷ Attacks upon honour could come from all sides. As J. E. Lendon points out, the great threat to honour was insult, and aristocrats were not immune from receiving such public censure from those beneath them.Footnote ¹⁸ Tacitus indicates that slaves and ex-slaves would try to intimidate their masters or patrons.Footnote ¹⁹ As Carlin Barton puts it of the Romans' ‘[t]o have a sense of honor was to have a sense of shame, of pudor or verecundia, a shyness, an ability, a willingness to be awed or intimidated by others. The Romans lived in a sort of “zero-sum” universe; by withdrawing one's gaze before another person or a god, one augmented, or increased the portion of the person or god’.Footnote ²⁰

Manner of dress and adornment were crucial in this endless play of seeing and being seen. Heavy and obvious make-up, for example, often met disapproval, for it tried to conceal.Footnote ²¹ Covering up the face with creams and colours could hide the involuntary act of blushing, which was a manifestation of shame that the Romans apparently found endearing and forgivable. If someone blushed, the community might likely find it charming and could readily restore that person's honour.Footnote ²² Thus one of the reasons why thick make-up was viewed suspiciously is that its wearer indicated an unwillingness to expose her shame in the form of a blush, and in turn, enable the onlookers to redeem her honour. Conversely, women's bodies needed to be well covered, for transparent clothing sent the message that the wearer wanted to be stared at; that she lacked the requisite concern for shame. Women who wore see-through clothes could be associated with adultery or prostitution and thus authors repeatedly stressed the need to cover up.Footnote ²³

Many concur that societies that emphasize honour and shame set different standards for men and women.Footnote ²⁴ Women often have to follow the values set by men, although depending upon the circumstances women can sometimes subvert honour/shame codes such that the men are more vulnerable to being shamed than women.Footnote ²⁵ Contemporary anthropologists increasingly argue that while the model of honour and shame set forth by the Oxford school of social anthropology in the 1960s was very valuable,Footnote ²⁶ it runs the risk of universally associating males with honour and females with shame. More recent anthropological studies, such as analyses of how music functions among men and women in different areas of the Mediterranean, reveal that honour and shame can function in diverse and ever-evolving ways.Footnote ²⁷

As there was less freedom for women to pursue status and honour in ancient Rome, adornment was a means by which females could assert their standing (as well as that of their husband) and seek honour in the community. Clearly women adorned themselves ornately if they had the means, given the plentiful archaeological evidence for jewellery, make-up and elaborate hairstyles. However, by attempting to display a certain status, a woman might jeopardize her honour (and that of her husband and family) in the eyes of other men at least; it all depended upon her social level, and the manner in which she presented herself. A woman of high rank might well ‘get away with’ wearing a certain jewel or hairpiece because it befitted her rank whereas a freedwoman would be severely criticized for donning the same piece, and accused of luxuria, which, as mentioned earlier, was dishonourable.Footnote ²⁸ Roman matrons, for example, ‘could display their own or their husbands’ wealth, particularly in the contexts of the pageantry of state ceremonies or religious processions',Footnote ²⁹ but they had to do so in a modest, understated way. Thus while adornment was a means by which a woman could declare her significance publicly and express her femininity,Footnote ³⁰ it had to be presented in an appropriate manner, consistent with her social level. Women were expected to arrange their hair (or have it arranged by slaves) in a style befitting their age and status,Footnote ³¹ but if they overdid it with complicated swirls and braids, or costly bands or ornaments, they could be accused of luxuria by men,Footnote ³² or of being sexually inviting.Footnote ³³ Highly ornamental hairstyles that connoted artificiality could provoke satirical attacks such as those of Juvenal, who is amazed at the number of tiers a woman could pile on her head.Footnote ³⁴

Although the Greeks and Romans lived in a gendered universe, with a clear hierarchy of male over female, and in which the male social identity was generally associated with public activities while that of the female was aligned with the domestic, women were not without power, including economic power. Female Roman citizens could not vote or hold public office, but they could still express their identity and status within the community. In general, women could not seek honour through oratorical brilliance or military prowess,Footnote ³⁵ but this did not mean that they did not have important economic roles or could not be involved in business and trade, or that wealthier women did not serve as patrons and benefactors to groups. There is ample evidence for all of these activities.Footnote ³⁶ Archaeological remains praise countless women for their roles as wives, mothers and sisters and often these women had to manage economic resources, especially when their husbands or children were off at war.Footnote ³⁷ Women could inherit wealth and own land, and as Susan Treggiari writes, ‘Roman law safeguarded a married woman's right to own and administer her own property (which for the upper classes seems normally to have been bigger than her dowry) and to decide how to dispose of it. She was expected (if possible) to pass it down intact or increased to her own children, if she had any, although she might will all or part to her husband’.Footnote ³⁸ From the second century BCE on, the economic power of widows was noted and some male sources indicate a fear of women who were wealthy and independent.Footnote ³⁹

An important dimension of a woman's economic power was her jewellery box. Jewellery was a type of portable wealth, and evidence indicates that women would remove a number of pearls from their necklaces or segments of gold from their bracelets, in order to pay for things. The notion that jewellery was a form of money is apparent in the precision with which gems are counted and valued, and disputes about their value are evident in legal sources,Footnote ⁴⁰ as well as the fact that some ornaments consisted of actual coins made into necklaces and bracelets. Furthermore, we cannot assume that the jewels were the sole property of the husband or father, for sometimes they may have been gifts to the woman, or she could have acquired them from elsewhere. Although a woman might not ‘own’ the jewellery, she may have had control over its use and disposal. As Ria Berg states, the ‘relative strength of the right of women to control objects that legally were not their property is indicated by the fact that women could, for example, include them in their testaments or give orders for their acquisition’.Footnote ⁴¹ Women sometimes used their jewellery as a last resort for the family, loaning it as collateral or paying off debts.Footnote ⁴² An examination of this evidence indicates a key point for Berg: despite women's association primarily with the domestic, private realm, ‘it was possible for Roman women to possess significant amounts of valuables, use them as financial resources and as symbols of these resources’.Footnote ⁴³ Given the worth of these items in a woman's world, it is quite conceivable that she would have admired other women when they donned such things even if men were critical.

But if adornment was one of the sources of a woman's economic power as well as a means of signalling her status to the community, it was also something, as we have seen, that could and did earn her criticism.Footnote ⁴⁴ Livy's reconstruction of debates about whether the Oppian Law of 215 BCE should be repealed in 195 BCE illustrates this point. The Law had decreed that women could not carry more than half an ounce of gold, nor wear clothes with purple trim, nor ride in carriages within a mile of Rome unless it was a public ritual. Marcus Porcius Cato and others argued that the Law should be upheld while Lucius Valerius, among others, wanted to revoke it. Cato, alarmed by the matrons who had blocked the streets and pleaded directly to other women's husbands for the revocation of the law, argues forcefully that women's indulgence and luxury be limited, for women are uncontrollable and the moment they become men's equals they will become superior.Footnote ⁴⁵ Valerius, however, counters that women's wealth has benefited the public welfare in times past, including examples of matrons contributing to the treasury and widows providing needed money in times of war.Footnote ⁴⁶ Moreover, since women cannot seek honour in ways that men can, ‘elegance of appearance, adornment, apparel—these are the woman's badges of honour; in these they rejoice and take delight; these our ancestors called the woman's world’.Footnote ⁴⁷ Maria Wyke, who analyses this debate, makes an important observation worth citing in full:

Appropriate adornment could contribute to a woman's social status, and even honour, according to Livy's depiction of Valerius's views, but she was always perceived as inferior to the male. Her time in front of the mirror was thus important for her public face, yet at the same time it perpetuated the notion that women were ‘frivolous, unconcerned with true civic life, and…inherently sexual’Footnote ⁴⁹ at least from the perspective of male writers.

Such perceptions of women naturally comprised a contrast to how men should behave. The ultimate insult to a man was the accusation that he was acting like a woman. As indicated above, careful conformity to the expectations of appropriate appearance and presentation were requisite in the endless effort to maintain or increase honour and thus a mistake, such as a man grooming himself too much, exposed him to the powerful and penetrating gaze of the group, which could ‘desoul’Footnote ⁵⁰ and shame him, leaving him a laughing stock. Seneca lashes out at effeminate men who arrange their hair and compete with women in the smoothness of their bodies,Footnote ⁵¹ while Juvenal satirizes men who wear make-up and tie up their ‘long locks in a gilded net’.Footnote ⁵² Onlookers were suspicious of Julius Caesar because he paid too much attention to his hair, wore his tunic loose and sometimes donned shoes that were an inappropriate shade of red.Footnote ⁵³ These features caused others to consider him dangerousFootnote ⁵⁴or weak.Footnote ⁵⁵ Cicero uses his criticisms of certain men's clothing as a way of undermining their character. If the man dressed in women's clothes or effeminately in any way, he was also guilty of immorality.Footnote ⁵⁶ Julia Heskel points out that in one case, Cicero satirizes a certain P. Clodius Pulcher, who famously infiltrated the women-only Bona Dea festival dressed as a woman. Although the description of Clodius is funny, Heskel indicates that the audience would also see the seriousness of the matter, for Clodius had not only violated gender roles, he was guilty of religious sacrilege.Footnote ⁵⁷

Men who wore overly fine clothes or jewellery were thus vulnerable to these sorts of attacks, and not only was their imitation of the feminine perceived as violating the natural order,Footnote ⁵⁸ they were engaging in the vice of luxuria, which was especially associated with women. The rich man in Jas 2.2–7 is a case in point here. As has been observed, the man who enters the assembly in fine clothes and flashing gold rings is comparable to Lucian's description of the ridiculous rich who show off their clothes and rings,Footnote ⁵⁹ expecting displays of respect and obeisance from onlookers. Lucian also illustrates how such people can be humiliated, however, when he describes a ‘millionaire’ who comes to Athens in his fancy clothes and jewellery expecting others to envy him. As the fop struts about in his finery, onlookers comment covertly but within his earshot with things such as ‘ “Spring already?” “How did that peacock get here?” and “Perhaps it's his mother's?” ’ This process of dishonouring the fellow by associating him with femininity has the effect of disciplining him, according to Lucian, and the man leaves ‘much improved’ by the ‘public education he had received’.Footnote ⁶⁰

Men were also susceptible to accusations that they had come under the sway of their wives, and were especially derided when it was apparent that their wives had economic power and influence over them. Juvenal satirizes the man who weds a woman for her money, and indicates that a wife whose husband has married her for her wealth has significant freedom, including the freedom to look elsewhere, which invites the possibility of cuckoldry, another source of dishonour to the husband.Footnote ⁶¹ For the Romans, ‘a man who is poorer than his wife is less of a man’.Footnote ⁶² Greek and Roman comedy made fun of men who were subject to the manipulations of their wealthy wives, for again, they were not upholding traditional notions of what it meant to be a strong, powerful male.Footnote ⁶³ It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that one reason a man would not want his wife to adorn herself ornately, especially if the woman was truly wealthy, was that it would signal her wealth to the group. Everyone would know how rich his wife was, and such knowledge could harm his reputation in the community. Even if the wife did not actually own the sumptuous clothes or jewels, her wearing of them sent the message that she could influence her husband to obtain them for her, and allow her to wear them. Such impressions would again render the man vulnerable to accusations that he was weak when facing the demands of a domineering wife.

These examples indicate that women and men were required to dress and adorn themselves in ways conforming to their gender role and that although wealth was a prerequisite for status for men and women, men had reasons to worry if their rich wives obviously advertised that fact. High-status women had to be groomed and elegant, for as Eve D'Ambra points out, ‘[t]he appearance of a sophisticated, well-turned-out woman in public was cause for praise not only for herself but for her husband. In the close quarters of a Roman city, with its well-defined pecking order, being seen at public events was not always as crucial as making a smart appearance in the company of one's spouse’.Footnote ⁶⁴ But if she wore things deemed too costly for her social level, she and her household (especially her husband) could be accused of indulgence, and the husband's reputation would be in jeopardy. He had lost control of his wife, and fallen prey to her wants, just as a lavish but tasteless banquet thrown by a man could earn an icy satire from the likes of Petronius, or an outlandish building project provoke disdain from philosophers.Footnote ⁶⁵

Luxurious spending, some ancients thought, ‘made people strange’, for it enslaved them to the quest for novelty, never satisfied with the mundane or the ordinary.Footnote ⁶⁶ Pliny the Elder calls luxuria a madness; a disease that harms not only the individual who engages in it but also the wider community.Footnote ⁶⁷Luxuria is dangerous for it upsets the natural order; and one of the reasons why pearls were so often singled out as examples of women's craving for luxuria is that they had been taken from their natural place in the sea to the land, where they did not belong.Footnote ⁶⁸ In the Andanian inscription, it is arguable that this worry about luxuria, among other concerns, lies behind the directives concerning gold, clothing and elaborate hair, for if women were permitted to wear such things, they might continually pursue more and more adornment possibly to the financial and social detriment of the association. Although women in the association might have admired the hairbands and jewellery of their fellow initiates, the males in the association decreed that there must be limits.

Despite the stress by male writers that women appear modest in public, and not attract attention to themselves, there is much evidence that many women, from varying social levels, sought to adorn themselves as best they could. Even though a woman may be admired by men for going unadorned, and in doing so, rise above her gender,Footnote ⁶⁹ the actual practice of many women seems to have been to wear jewellery, elaborate hairstyles and fine clothes if they could afford to do so. The ‘unadorned look’ was more of a propagandistic ideal than it was reality. The contrast between literary accounts of Agrippina the Younger's lavish displays of wealth in the form of a magnificent cloak made of gold, and rides in a carpentum, usually reserved only for priests, in the heart of Rome, with her official ‘unadorned’ portrait make this clear. Moreover, in private portraits she is depicted with earrings and even a bulla, or amulet that only boys wore. Likewise Cleopatra, famous for her pearls, is depicted with no jewels in official portraiture.Footnote ⁷⁰ This lack of jewellery in public portraits conveys the message that these women were above the craving for baubles and luxuria, an identity which would accent their honour in male eyes, for they appeared controlled and strong, like men. However, in reality they apparently enjoyed wearing and doing those things that would signal their high status to the community,Footnote ⁷¹ and perhaps garner admiration from other women. Thus while the ‘plain look’ might convey honour for men by associating them more with maleness, the wearing of beautiful clothes and expensive jewellery would underline their status in the society of women, and equip them with an economic power that could have ensured a certain degree of autonomy.

3. Implications for 1 Timothy and 1 Peter

Studies of the instructions about women and wives in 1 Timothy and 1 Peter have acknowledged that the exhortations not to braid hair, wear gold, pearls or expensive clothes are consistent with the general Graeco-Roman male emphasis upon female modesty and criticism of female adornment.Footnote ⁷² As the directions in each text are quite standard, it is difficult to reconstruct the actual social status of the women who are addressed, either directly in 1 Peter, or indirectly in 1 Timothy,Footnote ⁷³ although there must have been some women for whom the instructions were relevant, otherwise the teachings would be gratuitous.Footnote ⁷⁴ Although they are standard tropes, the words are there for a reason, and they demonstrate that the authors want the women in their communities to conform to conventional male notions of what an honourable woman's appearance and conduct should be. In the case of 1 Peter, John H. Elliott points out that the author advises such conformity ‘because this involved no sacrifice of Christian identity or principle, while it also secured public approval’.Footnote ⁷⁵ As such, the exhortation had an important function as Christians negotiated their daily lives in a hostile environment.

In light of the ambivalent nature of female adornment, meaning that it could be both a reason for criticism and dishonour, but also a sign of status and power, especially for women, how might we approach these instructions? In general, we can say that limiting the women's adornment with jewellery, fine clothes or elaborately braided hair would make her less visible in public. She would blend in and not attract the ‘gaze’ to which people were continually vulnerable nor earn male accusations of immorality or lack of concern about maintaining an appropriate sensitivity to honour and shame. Second, forbidding lavish adornment lessened the possibility that the women and their households could be accused of luxuria, an accusation that could bring dishonour to the family and church. Thus the restrictions on dress and adornment could function very positively for the communities given the patriarchal nature of the culture in which they lived.

Turning to 1 Timothy more specifically, the author may be concerned about adornment given the subsequent teachings on avoiding the pursuit of wealth, negative comments about money (1 Tim 6.9–10) and overall attention to public opinion (1 Tim 2.1–2; 3.7). The instructions would limit the women's ability to display their status within the community but this limitation would be to the advantage of the male members, for if the women dressed modestly and behaved submissively, as the instructions exhort them to do, there would be less chance of a husband being ridiculed for the perception that his wife was wealthier than he (whether or not this was true), or that she was able to control his purse strings. The same would apply, presumably, to any male guardian given that 1 Tim 2.9–12 does not explicitly address wives. The directions on women's dress are not concerned solely with how the women are perceived within the community, nor only with how the women interact with the men in the group, but how their dress and adornment reflect upon the men in the family and community, and in turn, how the community is perceived by the wider society. Given the letter's concern for public opinion, Ortner's insight about the link between perceptions of female purity and maintenance of male social status is relevant. If the men in the church are vying for more social acceptance, then their concern for how women are viewed by the outside world increases. According to Ortner, women are often expected to be purer than the men in a group that is seeking greater social respectability. As she writes:

Although Paul directs women to wear veils in 1 Cor 11.5–10, we do not see him restricting women's display of wealth in the undisputed letters, and some of the women he mentions, such as Phoebe (Rom 16.1–2), may have been rather well off. Thus in 1 Timothy, a deutero-Pauline letter, has the involvement of wealthy women in the church become problematic to the point that appeals to women's modest dress and inward adornment, so typical of the day,Footnote ⁷⁷ are required in order to fend off suggestions that the women are not under control and not ‘pure’?

Many authors have observed that 1 Timothy wants to limit women's empowerment.Footnote ⁷⁸ Given the fact that jewellery and fine clothing could be sources of economic power, the strictures placed upon the display of such wealth could contribute to the curtailment of some wealthy women's power within the community. Admittedly, the author does not dwell upon the matter, suggesting that it may not have been a huge concern,Footnote ⁷⁹ but nonetheless this aspect of the function of adornment merits attention. The author may wish for women to dress modestly in the context of worship in particular because he is concerned about the status indicators that women's wealth display could exhibit, especially among other women, thereby enhancing female significance and roles in the community overall. Thus limiting their adornment functions doubly to protect the community from external criticism and internally, to thwart any attempts women were making to maintain or enhance their leadership roles. There must be a reason why the author insists that women should not teach but learn in silence and submission (1 Tim 2.11–12) and the preoccupation of the letter with who is a proper widow and with young widows' behaviour (1 Tim 5.9–16) betrays concerns about women taking on what the author perceives to be improper roles within the community.

1 Peter is not preoccupied with women's behaviour in the manner that 1 Timothy is, and addresses a completely different social situation, but it does underscore the extent to which a woman's dress and comportment were important, as these people dealt with the difficulties of living within an unwelcoming environment. In this text, the honour/shame dimension of a woman's appearance is particularly important because although the limitations placed upon the woman's adornment might decrease her ability to convey her status to others, she was maintaining the honour of her husband, which he would undoubtedly appreciate.Footnote ⁸⁰ It is impossible to know if the women were wealthier than their spouses, but if this was the case, it should not be advertised for it could potentially cause the husbands dishonour as we have seen from the discussion earlier. Given the respect his wife's simple appearance and modest behaviour would garner him, the husband might now join the believers. Thus a woman's behaviour and adornment were so significant that they could potentially win over a husband. One might argue that there is even more pressure upon the women to be ‘pure’ here as their dress and comportment played significant roles in attracting males into the church. Drawing upon Ortner's point that women ‘are oriented upwards and represent the ideal status of the group’,Footnote ⁸¹ the perception of Christian women within the community may have functioned as a key factor in the degree to which new, male, members were attracted to the church. Moreover, in abiding by these instructions, the wife is conforming to the model of Sarah, whose child she had become (1 Pet 3.6). This dimension of the text is especially interesting. Could it be that the author has some inkling that women cared how they were perceived by other women in particular? Although becoming a child of Sarah is consistent with the larger identity of the addressees as faithful aliens and exiles,Footnote ⁸² does the author understand that this recognition by other women is important, and thus stresses the identification with Sarah? The latter is hard to say, but it is clear that the author is aware of the visual dimension of women's dress and comportment, for while the wives may not attract the notice of passers by, their significance in God's gaze (1 Pet 3.4) is ensured. But at the same time, the author is also aware of the empire's gaze upon the community, as the letter is sure to remind the audience, including the women within it, to ‘honour the emperor’ (1 Pet 2.17). Women's appearance would thereby be an important factor in deflecting social criticism and in maintaining whatever social status these early Christians had.

The letters of 1 Timothy and 1 Peter share little in common overall, but there are passages in both texts that curb female adornment and in so doing limit the women's ability to convey their status and honour, while increasing or at least preserving male honour and status. 1 Timothy 2.9–12 may intentionally do so whereas 1 Pet 3.1–6 is primarily concerned with the influence of female comportment upon the perception of the man, and in turn, how that may play a role in whether or not he may be won over. 1 Timothy seems to be especially worried about women exerting some degree of economic power in the church, and the public perception of such power. Given the attention to women's issues elsewhere in the Pastorals, such concerns may have been particularly significant in Ephesus. In addition, male honour could be affected by women's display of wealth, culminating either in accusations of luxuria or the perception that the husband was weak and subservient to his wife who spent his money on jewels. Considering that women's dress becomes even more of an issue based upon the attention it receives in patristic writings,Footnote ⁸³ one might speculate that women, in certain contexts, resisted giving up their adornment because they wished to display their status and assert their importance by maintaining some degree of economic power, while their male counterparts, concerned about the church's perception by the larger society, sought to control their appearance even more. Women likely knew the social consequences of their public face, and attempted to use their arts of adornment as tools to negotiate their involvement in the community at certain moments. At any rate, the fact that women continued to adorn themselves in the early church, as evident from the attention male writers give to the subject, reflects the value women placed on these practices. Adornment could have functioned as an expression and enhancement of female honour while it was simultaneously jeopardizing the honour of men.Footnote ⁸⁴ At the very least, studies of ancient texts that attempt to curtail women's adornment need to consider these contextual possibilities when trying to determine the rhetorical purposes and social meanings of such writings.Footnote ⁸⁵