click here
|
Chapter 7.5:
Interlude: Lovocatus and Catihernus
Fabio P.
Barbieri
|
The most obscure, undocumented
period of British history is that from about 470
(Sidonius letter speaking of renewed Saxon
pirate raids in Gaul) to 516 (the date of Mount
Badon). The only document from the period known
to me, apart from Constantius, is the severe
letter of condemnation sent by three Gallic
Bishops, including Licinius, Metropolitan of
Tours, to two British priests with Celtic names,
Lovocatus and Catihernus (Battle-Lion
and Iron-battle) in the first or
second decade of the sixth century. As it is
insufficiently known most books about the
period do not even mention it[1] I include a full
translation, as well as the Latin original in the
footnotes.
To the most blessed lords and
brothers in Christ the priests Lovocatus and
Catihernus, [this letter comes from] the bishops
Licinius, Melanius and Eustochius.[2]
We have been informed by the
report of the good and venerable man, Sparatus
the priest, that you have not ceased to carry
certain tables around the huts of your
fellow-countrymen[3]; and that you dare
celebrate Masses in the same conditions with
women committed to the Divine Sacrifice, whom you
have named fellow-hosts, so that, while you
deliver the Eucharist, they hold the Chalices,
given by you, and administer the Blood of Christ
to the people[4].
This unheard-of superstition
and the strangeness of this matter saddened us
greatly; that a sect so much to be dreaded, and
which can be proved never to have existed in
Gaul, should be seen to spring up in our day;
[the sect] which the Eastern fathers have named
Pepondian (since Pepondius was the author of this
schism, and dared to have women with him in the
sacrifice); [the Eastern fathers] ruled that
whoever wished to remain in this error would be
rendered alien to the communion of the Church[5].
For which matter we have
believed that your charity should first be
warned, in the love of Christ, for the sake of
the unity of the Church and the fellowship of the
Catholic Faith, imploring that as soon as this
page of letters of ours reaches you, an immediate
correction of the aforementioned matters should
follow; of the aforementioned tables, which we do
not doubt were consecrated, as you say, by
priests, and of those women whom you call
fellow-hosts; an expression not spoken nor heard
without a certain shivering of the soul, which
disgraces the clergy, a name[6] so much to be
detested in the holy religion that it strikes
shame and horror[7].
Therefore, according to the
statutes of the Fathers, we decree that your
charity should not only not corrupt the Divine
Sacraments by the illegal ministering of such
wretched females, but also that, apart from a
mother, a grandmother, a sister or a niece, if
anyone[8] wished to have [any
such woman] to live under his roof, he should be
repulsed by canonic sentence from the bounds of
the Church[9].
It is therefore right for you,
dearest brothers, that if matters are as they
have been reported to us, a very swift correction
should be shown; because it is better, for the
salvation of soul and the edification of the
people ,that things so disgracefully perverted by
the clerical order [itself] should be corrected
swiftly, so that neither should the stubbornness
of this obstinacy expose you to greater
confusion, nor should it be necessary for us to
come o you with the Apostolic rod, if you deny
charity, and hand you over to Satan in the death
of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved[10].
This is to hand over to Satan:
when someone is separated for his own crime from
the flock of the Church, he should not doubt that
he is to be devoured by the demons like savage
wolves[11].
In the same way we are also
warned by the Gospel sentence, where it says
if one of our limbs[12]should be a scandal to
us, whoever intrudes heresy into the
Catholic Church [or: the universal church]. So it
is easier to cut off one member who is staining
the whole Church, than to lead the whole Church
to destruction.[13].
Let these few things which we
have said out of many be enough for you. Work
hard in the communion of charity, and take care
with the keenest attention to walk in the royal
highway, from which you have deviated a little;
so that both you may receive the fruit of
obedience, and that we may rejoice together that
our prayers have saved you[14].
I would imagine that a nastier
kind of apostolic letter never reached a priest.
And it is easy to see what the real issue is.
The Bishops are annoyed at the two priests using
portable altars - goodness knows why, since
portable altars were used by priests then and are
used now but it is the presence of women
at the altar, serving the Precious Blood, that
has them foaming at the mouth, almost literally.
The uncomposed emotion that comes to the surface
every time that the conhospites are
mentioned rips the language apart; in spite of
the brevity of the letter, there is not only bad
style and bad Latin (uel for et
something that Gildas would not have
dreamed of writing), but repetition, verbosity,
incoherence. It is clear that the Bishops
were no scholars, and perhaps we already see here
the work of that decline of Gaulish learning
which led, in a century, from the ultra-academic
Latin of Sidonius Apollinaris to the peculiar
idiom of Gregory of Tours, whose dissection by
Auerbach we remember. But another power,
beside poor usage, is twisting the language: the
need to talk, to relieve oneself, to shout
ones innermost fury and loathing,
incoherently, dragging in red herrings, poor
arguments, wild parallels finding a
reason, any reason, good or bad, to refuse the
inconceivable thing that has unfolded itself
before their eyes.
There is, to begin with, a large,
unmistakable, odoriferous red herring. The
ruling about no woman except mothers,
grandmothers, sisters and nieces being allowed to
live with priests, spat out in a voice so
strangled that it neglects even to say that the
ruling is about priests so that it
sounds like they are forbidding anyone, si
quis, from living with any woman not related
to him is completely unnecessary, since
Sparatus is not said to have reported any such
thing of the conhospites! That sort
of thing happened, and still does; but the only
two things that Sparatus reported on, and the
only two on which the bishops actually ruled,
were the portable altars and the women serving
the Precious Blood. What happened is
perfectly clear: the bishops minds, in a
state of scarcely rational fury, seized on the
first charge associated with priests and women
that occurred to them, by a kind of psychological
free association.
But their more rational arguments
are scarcely better. They completely
misrepresent the facts about the Pepuzians (not
Pepundians), who took their names not from any
sect founder but from their village, Pepuzus.
They were a branch of the Montanist heresy who
consecrated women to the priesthood; the only
ancient sect known to me who did. The point
is that theirs was the only group the Bishops
could think which, a) was condemned as heretical,
and b) consecrated women to the priesthood.
But that they were condemned because they
consecrated women is, to the best of my
knowledge, quite false; they simply came within
the general condemnation that had befallen the
Montanist sect, which combined extreme rigorism
with increasing eccentricity in doctrine and
self-regard among its leaders (who came to think
themselves greater than Christ, bearers of a
further revelation beyond His).
The debating tactics of the
Bishops can only be described as desperate.
No condemnation of the Pepuzians as such exists,
although St.Epiphanius of Cyprus (who is not
commonly regarded as one of the wiser Church
Fathers) placed them in his list of eighty
heresies. But one entry in a highly
artificial list by a single Father hardly counts
as unchallengeable canonical authority. As
far as anyone can see, to say that the
Pepuzians were ever condemned is rather
like saying that the Norwegians were
condemned. Lutheranism was condemned; but
there was no special condemnation for Norwegians as
Norwegians, and, in the same way, no special
condemnation for Pepuzians as Pepuzians.
Pepuzian was only a geographical description.
And the fact that the Bishops spoke of generic
Eastern Fathers, specifying neither
the authority, nor the date, nor the place, nor
the events, shows that they were, on some level,
aware that they were prevaricating.
What is more, they were talking of
the wrong thing. There is a difference
between diaconal (or Levitical)
service, and presbyteral (or priestly) service:
at the altar, in particular, presbyters
consecrate, deacons distribute, the Body and
Blood. No deacon is allowed to speak the
words of Consecration, or indeed celebrate Mass.
Now what shocked Epiphanius, and later Augustine,
about the Pepuzians, is that they admitted women
to the full presbyterate; but if one thing is
abundantly clear, it is that the conhospites
of Lovocatus and Catihernus were not consecrators
hence presbyters but deaconesses.
They distributed the Precious Blood already
consecrated, presumably by Lovocatus and
Catihernus themselves.
Reading the excellent article
which, long ago, made the Letter to Lovocatus
and Catihernus known to the scholarly world, it becomes clear that
the Letter was in fact one episode in a
long and rancorous struggle by the Gaulish
episcopate to destroy the institution of female
Deaconesses, in a series of local councils from
394 to 533. The first and bitterest blow
was struck in 394 at the Council of Nīmes, which
refused deaconesses the Levitical office, that is
serving at the altar. The Second Council of
Orange, 451, the Council of Epaone, 517, and
finally the Council of Orleans, 533, forbade
women the diaconate altogether; the Council of
Orleans, faced with the fact that the office
existed and was ancient, brutally and
uncanonically asserted that the only reason why
women had been granted the blessing of the
diaconate was because earlier canon law had
been remiss!
Nīmes had apparently disposed of
the notion of service at the altar; the following
councils simply decree against women exercising
any of the diaconal services, in particular their
taking what we would today call a pastoral role,
intervening in the lives of the congregation and
giving advice and help. But there is no
further mention of service at the altar until
Lovocatus and Catihernus appear on the scene.
In the light of this vast body of
purely Gallic authority against deaconesses, it is significant that
the Bishops prefer to appeal to dubious and
unnamed Eastern Fathers to condemn
Lovocatus and Catihernus. They could say,
rightly it would seem, that there had never been
a sect in Gaul in which women served
at the altar; even the canons of Nīmes do not
contradict that, since they speak of the practice
as of something exotic - it happens nescio quo
loco, I dont know where, in
distant parts. But when they invoke
basically fictitious Eastern condemnations
instead of calling on the authority of two
centuries of Gaulish councils, there must be a
reason.
Now, in 1887 only thirty
years after Macaulay had found it bizarre that
the Church of Rome should even find
some space at all for female agency
no Church historian could have conceived
that a full sacramental female diaconate could
exist, let alone that it had. That picture
is now reversed. Rituals of consecrations
of deacons and deaconesses in the Eastern Church
have been discovered in Greek and Syriac
documents, and it is clear that, until the eighth
century or so, an order of female deaconesses
shared regularly in the work of the Church. The office went
back as far as the New Testament. Phoebe is
mentioned as a deaconess in Romans 16.1, before
any other member of the Church including the rich
and important Priscilla and Aquila, whose money
supported the Church in Corinth and in whose
house it met: it is clear that her
diaconate was not a mere generic
service but something of far greater
moment to St.Pauls missionary Church,
important enough to place her at the head of the
list of people who had helped him in his work.
The Church in the East relied on the work of
deaconesses; St.John Chrisostomos, Archbishop of
Constantinople, Doctor of the Church, and, to
many Christians, as close to being the voice of
orthodox faith as any author ever got, had 100
male and 40 female deacons serving in his
cathedral.
The interpretation seems almost
too easy: if the Eastern Church did actually
regularly employ large numbers of regularly
consecrated female deacons, and if the Bishops
practically invent an Eastern precedent, it must
mean that Lovocatus and Catihernus were aware of
Eastern practice and arguing from it. It is
clear from the content of the letter that some
discussion, with charges proffered and refuted,
must have preceded it: the Bishops accept
(without altering their position one millimetre)
that the presbyters portable altars were in
fact consecrated by priests, which means that at
a previous stage of the debate they had been
under the impression that they were not
consecrated at all. In fact, the letter
seems to me intended as the last word. Lovocatus
and Catihernus are denied any time to argue: they
are to change their practices forthwith, as soon
as the letter is received, or else they will be
excommunicated and probably condemned to death
(
and hand you over to Satan in
the death of the flesh, that the
spirit may be saved). Even in
Gauls barbarous sixth century, men would
not be threatened with the death penalty without
any previous warning. And if that is the
case, there is another item, apart from the
incorrect reference to Eastern
Fathers, that suggests bad faith on the
Bishops part: namely, that according to
Gregory of Tours, Licinius at least had travelled
extensively in the East - this is practically
the only thing Gregory says of him - and must
have been quite aware of Eastern practices.
It follows that, in my view, his ferocious
onslaught on Lovocatus and Catihernus
deaconesses is consciously at odds with features
of Church life known to himself. This is
not too distant from the brutalities of the
Council of Orleans, consciously rejecting earlier
canon law.
Socially, it is quite clear that
the tribal Britons to whom Lovocatus and
Catihernus minister have nothing like the
dominant position they seem to have acquired
when, by the time of Gregory of Tours, the Bishop
of Vannes refers to them as our
masters. The Bishops speak with
disdain of their capanas or huts a
plebeian word for a plebeian thing: in classical
Latin a hut is a casa or tugurium
and the whole tone is different. One
thing with which the Bishops do not charge them
is notoriety: their influence does not spread
beyond the capanas. There is no
sense that the eccentric practices of Lovocatus
and Catihernus could have any influence beyond
their misguided flock, let alone that any power
or threat attaches to this embryonic Celtic
Church; the fact that the two priests are
confidently threatened with death shows clearly
enough that political power is in the hands of
their enemies.
The only threat perceived is that
of corruption, and the corruption in question is
utterly local. It is because they
themselves are doing something that the Bishops
see as horrible and sinful, that the Bishops
threaten the presbyters with excommunication and
death. Nothing in the letter suggests that
the Britons might serve as a bad example to the
wider Gaulish Church. They are indeed
charged with shocking the people with
their bad practices; but the only people
this refers to is the people they
themselves minister to. It is the very
existence of the practice that, in the view of
Licinius, Eustochius and Melanius, stains the
Church unbearably.
Indeed, one suspects that the
British community in question was so separated
from the Gallo-Romans that any chance of
contamination would have been indeed remote.
The best, or least bad, explanation for the
Bishops condemnation of the two
presbyters portable altars is that they
made use of them not as an emergency measure, but
as a regular feature of their service,
celebrating Mass not in a regularly consecrated
church building, but in selected dwellings of
their lay flock no doubt, those of the
most socially prominent among them. This
turned this British church in on itself, allowing
only members of the British community, probably
dependent on their chieftains, into ceremonies
held probably in the homes of those same
chieftains. The Bishops overriding
goal is to break down the peculiarities of
Lovocatus and Catihernus practice and force
them into the Gallo-Roman mould; it can be seen
that to regularly celebrate only for the social
circle of the British settlers themselves, in
ways that only reinforce the hold of the most
socially prominent of them over the rest, would
not tend to open the community to other
influences.
But this insular in every
sense of the word community seems to have
been more open to the farther reaches of orthodox
Christianity (there is no trace of heretical
teaching in what Lovocatus and Catihernus do
the problem is all with practice, not with
doctrine) than the narrow-minded metropolitan of
Tours. Licinius and his colleagues
certainly did not write good Latin; as for their
knowledge of Church history and doctrine, they
may not have been as ignorant as the letter makes
them sound, since they were clearly bent on
twisting every fact available to them that
is, their ignoring of the Gallic rulings against
deaconesses and their extraordinary treatment of
the Pepuzians are evidence not of ignorance but
of purpose. For all we know, they may have
been perfectly conscious that the Pepuzians had a
sacrificing female presbyterate, not just a
diaconate; but the least that we can say is that
if that is the case, they did not show
unblemished polemical methods in deliberately
using an irrelevant case to condemn their
opponents and threaten them with the two most
terrible punishments, excommunication and death.
From the point of view of history,
what may be got from the Letter is that the
British community was probably small and poorly
regarded. That is, it was at a low ebb both
as compared with the role of the British of
Rigocatus and Rigothamus forty years earlier, who
were able to occupy and defend Gaul up to the
Loire, and with that of Gregory eighty years
later, when the British were the almost
unchallenged masters in the Armorican peninsula.
On the other hand, the Letter is the first
evidence we have of British Celtic settlement
anywhere near Armorica. However, the names
of the Roman bishops of Vannes and Nantes are
missing from the address, and, while the presence
of the metropolitan of Tours who was set
over the whole of Armorica is
understandable, the bishop of Angers had little
to do with the historic bounds of Brittany.
The grouping of these three bishoprics, Tours,
Rennes and Angers, suggests the old fighting
grounds of the war of the Loire; and I would
therefore suggest that the communities of
Lovocatus and Catihernus were remnants of the
vast British forces settled in those days to
defend the river. Their political power and
prestige seems to have been extremely small; it
is probably not a coincidence that the Letter
was, by the best estimate, written in the years
of Clovis triumph, when the newly converted
Franks were sweeping Gaul clear of Arians and
other enemies with the warm approval of the
bishops.
The knowledge of Eastern practices
shown by Lovocatus and Catihernus, however,
reminds us of Britains close seaborne
contact with the Greek East, abundantly proved by
archaeology, and, indirectly, by the evident
influence of the Eastern Church on the Irish (the
Eastern features often noticed in Irish
monasticism, and Eastern texts like Enoch
and The Ascension of Moses, known nowhere
else in the Latin West but popular in the East,
must have come to Ireland in the keels of Eastern
traders, together with the wine whose
"combed amphorae" have been found in
Cork); and this, in turn, suggests that this
community, however visibly diminished and weak as
compared both to earlier and to later British
presences in Gaul, was still close to Britain,
sharing its religious and cultural experiences.
This, in turn, suggests a political subtext to
the violent clash of the presbyters and the
bishops, with a pro-Frankish Gallo-Roman
ecclesiastical authority trying to subdue an
isolated British community that still looks
across the sea to Britain, and perhaps, beyond
Britain, to the Roman East. Of course, such
a political subtext is extremely far from
explaining everything: the threat of
excommunication and death is something that goes
far beyond mere squabbles for control, and can
only be explained by the savage disgust of the
bishops at the very thought of women around the
altar, that dreadful thought that distorts their
Latin and makes them twist both argument and
evidence rather than tolerate it.
This chapter has unavoidably
passed over from the past into the hottest of
modern ecclesiastical hot potatoes, namely the
ordination of women. After making
statements that are directly relevant to the
lives of contemporary Christians and to the
opposing viewpoints to which they are all, from
the highest (I mean the Pope) to the lowest,
committed, I cannot for shame let the matter as
it is. It is necessary to make a statement
of my views.
The existence of fully consecrated
women deacons in the Eastern church, at a time in
which it was in full communion with the Church of
Rome and indeed its liveliest part, is in my view
a proven fact. If people want to deny that
it goes back as far as Romans 16.1, they may, but
that is hardly the best reading of the passage.
The point is however that a fully sacramental
ritual of consecration of deaconesses, parallel
in every respect with the ritual for their male
counterparts, is known from more than one Eastern
source at a time when Catholic unity was
undoubted, and when the validity of the
ordination of the bishops who ordained the
deaconesses cannot be impugned.
Historically, the Eastern church
never went beyond the ordination of deaconesses
and refused explicitly or implicitly to even
consider presbyteral ordination; and it was
perhaps able to mentally separate the two grades.
It is quite possible that it was deepening
reflection on the theological nature of the
priesthood that drove first the Western and then
the Eastern churches to suppress the female
diaconate, since it was becoming clearer and
clearer that a basic unity underlay the three
grades of ordination, and that a female diaconate
might imply the possibility of a female
presbyterate and episcopate.
Personally I cant stand
people such as John Wijngaards, with their minds
stuffed with progressive clichés and
dead English (he is the kind of person who says
that women have to battle against
prejudice; that verb battle
being the vilest kind of journalistic dead talk);
but I cannot see how anyone who understands
theology and Church history can escape the logic
of his argument. The sacrament of Holy
Orders has three levels: diaconate, presbyterate,
episcopate. Any one who receives any
of the three is consecrated to the ministerial
priesthood, as the Council of Trent defined
it. Holy Orders, like Baptism and
Confirmation, is a sacrament that alters the very
being of the person who receives it, and cannot
be unmade, even retrospectively; which is why a
priest who wants to be unfrocked has to follow a
procedure many find humiliating, to admit that he
never meant the vows he pronounced in the first
place, and that therefore his ordination had a
vice of form. No Church authority can make
a person who was validly ordained be, in any way,
retrospectively deprived of the sacrament. The
Council of Trent thunders: If anyone says
that, through sacred ordination, the Holy Spirit
is not given, and therefore that bishop says in
vain, Receive the Holy Spirit
let him be
anathema.
The strongest argument against the
ordination of women in the modern world is that
it is tainted. The Swedish Lutheran Church
was the first major body of any kind to ordain
women, and it did not do so of its own free will,
but under the orders of a Social Democrat and
presumably largely atheist parliament. From
Sweden the fashion for women spread, like many
other fashions of the sixties and seventies -
from sex to unadorned furniture in
concentric circles across Europe and North
America; Italys ancient Waldensian Church,
that predated the Reformation, received its first
female ministers in the sixties. I am in
favour of a married clergy, of the ordination of
women, and for that matter of ordained married
women; but I would rather have another thousand
years of unmarried male priests, than that the
Church were forced to change its constitution by
anything but its own unforced decision on the
issues. I think it was a black day for any
Christian, male or female, when the Swedish
Parliament forced its will on the Swedish
Lutheran Church, for whatever reason; I think it
was just as black a day when the nastiest kind of
self-righteous demand-maker fell upon the
Anglican entity and forced, with a concerted
propaganda campaign, to accept women ministers by
political means.
But in my view, the reason why the
Church must now make up its mind on an issue it
simply did not occur to her to tackle before is
here now, and it has nothing to do with Swedish
sixties fashions. It has, however, plenty
to do with Communist sixties persecution. The
case of the women ordained by an underground
Czech bishop who had been authorized by the
Vatican to take what emergency measures he felt
right to preserve the Church involve the whole
Church in a matter of sacramental validity.
Quite simply, if those women were not validly
ordained, then the sacraments delivered in
conditions of heroic secrecy and intense danger
to underground Catholics who relied on them for
the grace of sacraments are invalid too; the holy
oils given to the dying are invalid; and hundreds
if not thousands of Czechs who have struggled to
stay faithful in the grimmest circumstances have
worse than wasted their efforts. I am
convinced that they were, and that all the heroic
believers of the catacombs have lived and died
with valid sacraments. It does not, in this
respect, matter much whether the unfortunate
Czech faithful in question have received grace by
means of their faith even if their sacraments
were invalid. That is, it matters to them,
but not to the Church.
This, in my view, is an issue
worthy of a Council, and indeed only the
consensus of a whole Ecumenical Council could
legitimately decide on it. The Pope has
rightly declined to solve the matter ex
Cathedra, doing, perhaps, the right thing for
the wrong reasons: his view was that the
Infallibility vested in the whole Church has
pronounced against the ordination of women.
I speak as a historian when I say that it has
done nothing of the kind. Of course, too,
if once a Council had pronounced in favour - or
indeed against - the ordination of women, then
the Church could face any schism with a clean
conscience. Meanwhile, the "ordained
women" of the former Czechoslovakia would do
many people in the Church a big favour if they
would only form a schism and - in the American
sense of the word - split; by not doing so, by
stubbornly staying within the Church, they bear
witness to their own belief in their legitimacy.
Finally, I have heard an
intelligent opponent caricature the opposition
view - which is largely my view - by describing
it as, and I quote, Jesus was 'simply' an
ordinary man of his time - though a very gifted
and 'spiritual' one to be sure - a total product
of His environment - and that was a patriarchal
and misogynistic one. No; I think it is
perfectly possible to argue that Jesus was God in
the full conscience of being God, and that he
still set up the organization of the Church, not
as a perfect model that would function in the
same way always, but as something that would work
in His time, and that was not meant to be,
organizationally, unchanged. If it was otherwise,
the Church would still be ruled by 12 Apostles
and 70 Disciples. And yes, in Jesus' environment
and time, a woman preacher would have got
considerably less than nowhere: she would have
discredited the whole movement she belonged to.
Men, and especially Jewish men, would not have
stopped for a minute to listen to her teachings;
and as the whole duty laid on the shoulders of
Apostles and Disciples was: "Go ye therefore
and teach all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe
all things whatsoever I have commanded you"
- I think it is simply obvious that, short of
continued miracle, such a commission COULD NOT be
given to a woman in the Roman age; perhaps less
at that time than at almost any time in the
history of the world.
Paul's attitude is characteristic,
and it must be noticed that the Church has calmly
dropped his demand that women should be silent in
the congregation, for to them it was not
permitted to speak. Indeed, it is fairly certain
that it was not observed even in his time, for
Philip the Evangelist had four daughters who were
all prophetesses (Acts 21) and it is on record
that among the faithful (explicitly not only the
Apostles) who were gathered in Jerusalem and
received the Holy Spirit, there were the Blessed
Virgin and "the women", meaning surely
all the women who were prominent in the first
Church, and whose names we sometimes encounter in
the Gospels. The Spirit was given to them as
well; yet the moment when it is a matter of
speaking to a large crowd of unbelieving Jews, it
is only the men and in particular their
leader, Peter - who speak. To anyone familiar
with the time, the place and the spirit of it,
this is simply obvious; in all my Classical and
Biblical reading, I do not think I have come
across a single case in which a woman made a
speech in a public place - except for the wicked
Queen Clytemnestra in Aeschylus' Agamemnon,
as she is preparing to murder her legitimate
husband and lord and put an usurper in his place.
But this is nothing to do with Christianity and
everything to do with the social habits (and,
indeed, the inheritance laws) of Romans, Greeks
and Jews.
I think that the fact that
Philip's four daughters were prophetesses says a
lot, for as far as I can see, unlike apostles and
later bishops and presbyters, prophets - as an
office in the early Church - spoke only to the
already converted. They spoke as it were in code,
from a viewpoint and within categories that only
Christians were expected to receive and
understand. I therefore suggest that women were
generally held to be able to speak within the
congregation, among the converted, but not
outside, in what moderns would call the real
world. If I am correct, among other things, it
would explain why it is frequently held that
contemporary Jews and Pagans tended to find the
attitudes of the Christians to their women, not
too rigid, but too loose. In fact, the horror of
pagans at the idea of men and women sitting down
together at the agape and sharing sacred
things was such that they immediately turned it
into a legend of depravity and perverted lust: to
them, such things were the reverse of all
accepted standards. (Eighteen hundred years
later, Macaulay was to praise the
"policy" of the "Church of
Rome" in that "even for female
agency she finds a place". In that even
there is all the difference between that century
and this.)
Notes
History
of Britain, 407-597 is copyright © 2002, Fabio
P. Barbieri. Used with permission.
Comments
to: Fabio P.
Barbieri
|