Produced by Rénald Lévesque
_WOMAN_
VOLUME III
_WOMEN OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY_
BY
Rev. ALFRED BRITTAIN and MITCHELL CARROLL, Ph.D.
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
J. CULLEN AYER, Jr., Ph.D.
OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY
[Illustration 1: _SEEKING SHELTER After the painting by Luc
Oliver Merson
Notwithstanding all that is said in these ancient writings in
the attempt to do her honor, we must conclude that the glory of
the halo which beautifies the head of the real Mary is derived
by reflection from the moral splendor of her Son.... We need
such a poetic creation as Mary; and her place at the head of all
the daughters of earth is the more secure and effective because
her figure in authentic history is but a shadowy outline. The
ideal woman whom all mankind loves and reverences as Virgin,
Mother, and Saint, is objectified by concentrating in Mary of
Nazareth all possible feminine grace, beauty, and purity._]
_Woman_
_In all ages and in all countries_
_VOLUME III_
_WOMEN OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY_
BY
Rev. ALFRED BRITTAIN
AND
MITCHELL CARROLL, Ph. D.
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
J. CULLEN AYER, Jr., Ph. D.
_Of Harvard University_
_ILLUSTRATED_
_PHILADELPHIA
GEORGE BARRIE & SONS, Publishers_
COPYRIGHT, 1907, BY GEORGE BARRIE & SONS
Entered at Stationers' Hall, London
INTRODUCTION
WHEN the historian has described the rise and fall of empires and
dynasties, and has recounted with care and exactness the details of the
great political movements that have changed the map of continents, there
remains the question: What was the cause of these revolutions in human
society--what were the real motives that were operative in the hearts
and minds of the persons in the great drama of history that has been
displayed? The mere chain of events as they have passed before the eye
as it surveys the centuries does not give an explanation of itself.
There must be a cause that lies behind these events, and of which they
are but the effects. This cause, the true cause of history, lies in the
minds and hearts of the men and nations. The student of the past is
coming more and more to see that the only hope of making history a
science, and not a mere chronicle, is to be found in the clear
ascertainment and study of those psychological conditions which have
made actions what they were. Foremost among those conditions have been
the hopes, aspirations and ideals of men and women. These have been the
greatest motive forces in the history of the world. These, quite as much
as merely selfish considerations, have guided the conduct of the men who
have made history, not merely those who have been leaders in the great
movements of society, but the multitude of followers who have not
attracted the attention of historians, but have, nevertheless, given the
strength and force to the revolutions of the world.
The deepest interest in the history of Christian women lies in the way
in which woman's status in society has been modified by the new
religion. The chronicle of saintly life and deeds is a part of that
history. But there are, also, women who have signally failed to attain
those virtues for which their religion called. These, too, have their
place, for both have either forwarded or retarded the realization of
woman's place in society. Often the heathen spirit is but half concealed
under the mask of Christianity. But the whole tone of society has been
changed, nevertheless, by the ideas and ideals which that religion
brought before men's minds in a new and vivid manner.
The position of woman has been more influenced by Christianity than by
any other religion. This is not because there have not been noble
sentiments expressed by non-Christian writers; for among the rabbinical
writers, for instance, are many fine sentiments that could have come
only from men who clearly perceived the place of woman in an ideal human
society. Nor because in Christianity there have not been men whose
conception of woman was more suitable to the adherents of those faiths
that have regarded her as a thing unclean. But from the very nature of
the appeal which Christianity has made to the world, the place of woman
in society has been changed. The new faith appealed to all mankind in
the name of the humanity which the Son of God had assumed, and
consequently it was forced to treat men and women as on a spiritual
equality. It was forced by the natural desire for consistency to break
down any barriers that might keep one-half of the human race from the
full realization of the possibilities of their natures, which were made
in the image of God. It is in this relation of Christianity to the
world, quite as much as in the sayings and precepts of its Founder and
his Apostles, that has been found the ground for the great work of
Christianity in raising the position of women in the world.
Christianity should in this respect be compared with the other religions
that have attained prominence. Among those that were national religions,
there has been no appeal to the world in general. They were bound up
with the race, and their adherents were those of the race or nation in
which they were to be found. Such religions have made no appeal to the
individual. They had no propaganda. They did not extend to other
nations. They were essentially national. In them there was no place for
women. The father of the household represented his family, and although
women had certain duties in connection with the household worship, it
was only because they were under the power of some men. This is true of
the religions of India, China, and the ancient religions of the Semitic
race. In two of the great world-religions, those centring on Mahomet and
Buddha, there has been no place for women as such. These religions are
primarily the religion of men. But in the case of Christianity, the
appeal has been to every human being, merely because of the human
element. If there were to be no distinction on account of race or social
condition, still less was there on account of sex. Male and female were
alike in Christ. The Christian must be a believer for himself--the faith
of no one else could serve for him. Marriage made no difference in the
religious position of anyone. Such sentiments applied day after day in
the course of the world's life could not remain without their effect,
and the change wrought by them has been profound and lasting.
That there has not yet been the full realization of the ideal of
Christianity in the matter of the position of woman in society is no
stranger than the non-realization of the ideals of that or any other
faith. The eternal ideas of right are sometimes extremely slow in their
operation. The forces they have to overcome are strongly intrenched. But
slow as may seem the progress, the power of right steadily gains and the
temporary success of evil is soon past. The ways in which the triumph of
the Christian ideal has been brought nearer have been at times very
varied. At one time it may seem that the leaders in the cause of social
regeneration have been wholly blind to the full significance of the
faith they professed. Fantastic forms of asceticism have banished women
from the society of those who were trying to lead the perfect life. But
the more sympathetic study of the extravagances of religious enthusiasm
has been able to discover that even in ages in which ideals seemed to be
wholly opposed to those of latter ages, there has been the same
fundamental conception which has been constantly striving for
realization in the world.
In the light of subsequent history, it appears fortunate that the
position of woman in the new society was not more fully and carefully
defined by the teachers of the new religion. If the early Christian
teachers had given their followers minute rules regulating their life
and conduct, there might easily have been a return to a legalism that
would have been disastrous for the new faith. Even the few regulations
that are to be found in connection with matters of order and discipline
in the Apostolic Church, so far as they have concerned women, have been
frequently misunderstood and misapplied. They have been made of lasting
obligation by many, rather than considered as the expression for the
times and circumstances in which the early Church was placed, of
principles of propriety which might be very different from, if not
indeed contrary to, the sentiments of another age. But by leaving the
whole question open, with but a very few exceptions, the great working
out of the freedom of the new faith was possible. Woman has been
recognized by the world as man's helpmate. She is not his toy or his
slave, but a sharer with him in the highest privileges of human nature.
An appreciation of the tremendous responsibilities that have been put
upon her by the fact of her womanhood has not separated her from man,
but both are seen standing side by side in the New Kingdom.
JOSEPH CULLEN AYER, JR.
_Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge._
PREFACE
Christianity introduced a new moral epoch in the course of human
history. Its effect was necessarily transforming upon those who came
under its sway. Being cosmopolitan in its nature, we have now to study
woman as being somewhat dissociated from racial type and national
manner, and we shall seek to ascertain how she met and was modified by
Christian conditions. These had a larger effect upon her life than upon
that of man; for, by its nature, Christianity gave an opening for the
higher possibilities of her being of which the old religions took little
account. In the realm of the spiritual, it, for the first time, assented
to her equality with man. That the women of the first Christian
centuries submitted themselves to the influence of that religion in a
varying degree, the following pages will abundantly show. And it will be
seen that in the many instances where the Christian doctrine was not
permitted to dominate the life, the dissimilarity of those women from
their prototypes in former heathendom is correspondingly lessened. While
it is not possible to treat this subject without illustrating the
above-mentioned fact, the authors beg to remind the reader that this is
distinctively a historical and not a religious work. Though, under other
circumstances, they would be very willing to state positive views in
regard to many questions herein suggested, it is not within the province
of this book to defend or refute any religious institution. The aim is
solely and impartially to represent the life of the Christian women of
the first ages.
Though this is a work of collaboration, Mr. Brittain is solely
responsible for the part of the book treating of the women of the
Western Roman Empire, and Mr. Carroll is solely responsible for that
discussing the women of the Eastern Roman and Byzantine Empires.
Differences of personal characteristics, based upon dissimilarity of
national temperament, reveal themselves in these women of Rome and
Constantinople, but the Christian principle, through its transforming
and elevating influence on the lives of pagan women, gives unity to the
volume, and presents a type of womanhood far superior to any that had up
to this time been produced by the Orient or early Greece or ancient
Rome.
ALFRED BRITTAIN,
MITCHELL CARROLL.
PART FIRST
WOMEN OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE
I
THE WOMEN OF THE GOSPEL NARRATIVE
The study of the early Christian women takes up a phase of the history
of woman which is peculiar to itself. It is, in a sense and to a degree,
out of historical sequence. It deals with a subject in which ideas and
spiritual forces, rather than the effect of racial development, are
brought into view. It presents difficulties all its own, for the reason
that not only historical facts about which there can be no contention
must be mentioned, but also theories of a more or less controversial
nature. We shall endeavor, however, as far as is possible, to confine
ourselves to the recapitulation of well-authenticated historical
developments and to a dispassionate portrayal of those feminine
characters who participated in and were influenced by the new doctrines
of early Christianity.
In writing of the women who were the contemporaries and the
acquaintances of the Founder of Christianity the difficulty is very
greatly enhanced by the fact that everything related to the subject is
not only regarded as sacred, but is also enshrined in preconceptions
which are held by the majority of people with jealous partiality. Our
source of information is almost exclusively the Bible; and to deal with
Scriptural facts with the same impartiality with which one deals with
the narrative of common history is well-nigh impossible. There are few
persons who are exempt from a prejudicial leaning, either in favor of
the supernatural importance of every Scriptural detail or in opposition
to those claims which are commonly based upon the Gospel history. We
hear of the Bible being studied merely as literature, a method most
highly advantageous to a fair understanding of its meaning and purport,
but possible only to some imaginary, educated person, unacquainted with
the Christian religion and totally unequipped with theological
conceptions. That which is true of the Bible as literature is also
applicable to the Scripture considered as history.
Yet we shall endeavor to bear in mind that we are not writing a
religious book, and that this is not a treatise on Church history; it is
ordinary history and must be written in ordinary methods. Consequently,
in order to do this subject justice and to treat it rightly, we must
endeavor to remove the women mentioned in the Gospels as far as possible
from the atmosphere of the supernatural and to see in them ordinary
persons of flesh and blood, typifying the times as well as the
circumstances to which they belonged. Though they played a part in an
event the most renowned and the most important in the world's history,
yet they were no more than women; in fact, they were women so
commonplace and naturally obscure, that they never would have been heard
of, were it not for the Character with whom they were adventitiously
connected. A memorial has been preserved, coeval, and coextensive with
the dissemination of the Gospel, of the woman who anointed Christ; but
solely on account of the greatness of the Object of her devotion.
Our purpose in this chapter is to ascertain what manner of women they
were who took a part in the incomparable event of the life of Christ,
what their part was in that event, and how it affected their position
and their existence.
The whole history of the Jewish race and all the circumstances relating
thereto abundantly justify the application to the Jews of the term "a
peculiar people." A branch of the great Semitic division, in many ways
they were yet most radically distinguished from every other part of the
human family. By many centuries of inspired introspection they had
developed a religion, a racial ideal, and national customs which
entirely differentiated them from all other Eastern peoples. The Jew is
one of the most remarkable figures in history. First there is his
magnificent contribution to religion and world-modifying influences, so
wonderfully disproportionate to his national importance; then there is
the marvellous persistency of his racial continuity.
That which set apart the Jews from other nations was mainly their
religion. These peculiar people, inhabiting at the time of Christ a
small tract of country scarcely larger than Massachusetts, deprived of
national autonomy, being but a second-class province of the Roman
Empire, nevertheless presumed to hold all other races in contempt, as
being inferior to themselves. This religious arrogance, manifesting
itself in a vastly exaggerated conception of the superiority, both of
their origin and of their destiny, surrounded the Jews with an
impenetrable barrier of reserve. That national pride which in other
peoples is based on the memory of glorious achievements on the
battlefield, on artistic renown, or on commercial importance, found its
support among the Jews in their religious history, in their divinely
given pledges, and in laws of supernatural origin. And indeed they were
a race of religious geniuses; they were as superior in this respect as
were the Greeks in the realm of art and the Romans in that of
government.
These facts, which are so universally acknowledged as to need no further
reference here, warrant a closer study of the manner of life of the
ancient Jewish women than that to which we can afford space.
In the Gospel narrative women hold a large place. As is natural, a very
great deal of the grace and beauty of the record of Christ's life is
owing to the spirit and presence of the feminine characters. This the
Evangelists have ungrudgingly conceded. There does not seem to have been
the least inclination to minimize the part played by women; indeed,
their attitude toward Christ is by inference, and greatly to their
credit, contrasted with that of the men. The women were immediately and
entirely won to Christ's cause. They sat at His feet and listened with
gratitude to the gracious words which He spake; they brought their
children to be blessed by Him; they followed Him with lamentations when
He was led away to death. There were among their number no cavillers, no
disbelievers, none to deny or betray. When the enemies of Jesus were
clamoring for His death and His male disciples had fled, it was to the
women He turned and said: "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but
weep for yourselves, and for your children." Well might the instincts of
the Daughters of Jerusalem incline them to sympathize with the work and
suffering of the Man of Nazareth, for it is incontrovertible that no
other influence seen in the world's history has done so much as
Christianity to raise the condition of woman.
The position of woman in Palestine, though much inferior to that of man,
was far superior to that which she occupied in other Oriental nations.
Jewish law would not permit the wife to fall to the condition of a
slave, and Israelitish traditions contained too many memories of noble
and patriotic women for the sex to be held otherwise than in honor. A
nation whose most glorious records centred around such characters as
Sara, Miriam, Deborah, Esther, and Susanna could but recognize in their
sex the possibility of the sublimest traits of character. Moreover,
every Hebrew woman might be destined to become the mother of the long
hoped for Messiah, and the mere possibility of that event won for her a
high degree of reverence.
At the same time, the Jewish women, like those of all other ancient
nations, were held in rigid subordination; nor was there any pretence
made of their equality with men before the law. A man might divorce his
wife for any cause: a woman could not put away her husband under any
circumstances. A Jewish woman could not insist on the performance of a
religious vow by which she had bound herself, if her husband or her
father made objection. Yet, from the earliest times, the property rights
of Israelitish women were very liberal. In the Book of Numbers it is
recorded how Moses decreed that "If a man die, and have no son, then ye
shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. And if he have no
daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren." But
tribal rights had to be considered. Possessions were not to be alienated
from one tribe to another. Hence it was also decreed that "Every
daughter that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of
Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father,
that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his
fathers." In the time of Christ, however, this restriction on marriage
was unnecessary, ten of the tribes not having returned from the
Captivity. The house at Bethany where Jesus was entertained belonged to
Martha; and we read of wealthy women following Him and providing for His
needs out of their own private fortunes. In the early days, among the
Hebrews, marriage by purchase from the father or brothers had been the
custom; but in the time of which we are writing a dowry was given with
the bride, and she also received a portion from the bridegroom.
The inferior position of Jewish women is frequently referred to in the
rabbinical writings. A common prayer was: "O God, let not my offspring
be a girl: for very wretched is the life of women." It was said: "Happy
he whose children are boys, and woe unto him whose children are girls."
Public conversation between the sexes was interdicted by the rabbis. "No
one", says the Talmud, "is to speak with a woman, even if she be his
wife, in the public street." Even the disciples, accustomed as they were
to seeing the Master ignore rabbinical regulations, "marvelled" when
they found Him talking with the woman of Sychar. One of the chief things
which teachers of the Law were to avoid was multiplying speech with a
woman. The women themselves seem to have acquiesced in this degrading
injunction. There is a story of a learned lady who called the great
Rabbi Jose a "Galilean Ignoramus," because he had used two unnecessary
words in inquiring of her the way to Joppa. He had employed but four.
By the Jews women were regarded as inferior not only in capacity but
also in nature. Their minds were supposed to be of an inferior order and
consequently incapable of appreciating the spiritual privileges which it
was an honor for a man to strive after. "Let the words of the Law be
burned," says Rabbi Eleazar, "rather than committed to women." The
Talmud says: "He who instructs his daughter in the Law, instructs her in
folly." In the synagogues women were obliged to sit in a gallery which
was separated from the main room by a lattice.
Yet it is scarcely to be supposed that in everyday Jewish life the
pharisaical maxims quoted above were adhered to with any great degree of
strictness. Especially in Galilee, where there was much more freedom
than in the lower province, it may well be imagined that there existed a
wide difference between these arrogant "counsels of perfection" and the
common practice. There is no doubt that the rabbis and the scribes
observed the traditions to the minutest letter; but inasmuch as in these
days it would be misleading to delineate the common life of a people by
the enactments found on their statute books, we are justified in
concluding that ordinary existence in ancient Palestine was not nearly
such a burdensome absurdity as the rabbinical law sought to make it.
Human nature will not endure too great a strain. At any rate, we can but
believe that, subordinate as she may have been, the Jewish woman found
ample opportunity to assert herself. The rabbi may have scorned to
multiply speech with his wife on the street, but doubtless there were
occasions which compelled the husband to endure a multiplicity of speech
on the part of his wife at home. It was not without experience that the
wise man could say: "A continual dropping on a very rainy day and a
contentious woman are alike."
The sayings of the scribes, which are derogatory to the female sex, are
abundantly offset by many injunctions of an opposite nature which are
found in the sacred and in the expository writings of the Jews. One of
the first things drilled into the mind of a young Hebrew was that his
prosperity in the land depended wholly upon his observance of the law
that he should "honor his father and his mother." The virtuous woman
portrayed by King Lemuel was still the ideal in the time of Christ: "Her
sons rise up and praise her; her husband also extols her." The
declaration in the book of Proverbs that "the price of a virtuous woman
is set far above that of rubies" is not to be understood in the sense of
irony. "Honor your wife, that you may be rich in the joy of your home,"
says the Talmud; and there was a proverb: "Is thy wife little? then bow
down to her and speak." The Son of Sirach said: "He that honoreth his
mother is as one that layeth up treasure ... and he that angereth his
mother is cursed of God."
As among all other Eastern peoples, the education of Jewish girls was
greatly neglected; but it can hardly be said that they were losers on
that account. They were simply saved a great deal of profitless labor
which fell upon their brothers. The learning of the Jews, so far as
higher education was concerned, did not add much either to the grace or
the enjoyment of life. It was pedantry of the driest and dreariest kind.
It consisted of interminable glosses upon the Law and of the "traditions
of the elders." It exercised no faculties of the mind excepting the
memory and such powers of reasoning as are employed in subtle casuistry.
There was in it nothing of art or science, or even of history, except
Jewish history. Greek learning was abhorred by the strictly orthodox.
They said the command was that a man's study should be on the Law day
and night; if anyone therefore could find time between day and night he
might apply it to Gentile literature. There were schools in abundance;
but they are spoken of only in relation to boys. In the fundamental
moral precepts, however, and in the highest national ideals, the Jewish
girls were no less thoroughly trained than were their brothers. Ozias
testified to Judith, who with feminine strategy and masculine courage
overthrew Holophernes: "This is not the first day wherein thy wisdom is
manifested; but from the beginning of thy days all the people have known
thy understanding, because the disposition of thy heart is good." Of the
chaste Susanna it was said that, her parents being righteous, they
taught their daughter according to the Law of Moses. Timothy owed his
early training to his mother Eunice and his grandmother Lois. The
Israelitish mother, in the dawn of her children's intelligence,
carefully taught them the lore of the ancient Scriptures and instructed
them in the principal tenets of the Jewish faith. There never existed
another nation that cared so thoroughly for the training of its young in
the doctrines of morality and in those national memories which are
efficacious in the perpetuation of an ardent patriotism. In all this the
girls were privileged equally with the boys. As Edersheim says: "What
Jewish fathers and mothers were; what they felt towards their children;
and with what reverence, affection, and care the latter returned what
they had received, is known to every reader of the Old Testament. The
relationship of father has its highest sanction and embodiment in that
of God towards Israel; the tenderness and care of a mother in that of
the watchfulness and pity of the Lord over his people."
Religion was the breath of Jewish life. It is absolutely impossible to
touch on Hebrew history, customs, or ideals, in any period or to any
extent, and not to come into contact with Hebrew religion. This, as we
know, was full of burdensome ritual and formalities; the Law, with all
its elaborate ramifications, governed the minutiae of daily existence.
Yet it is again necessary to be careful not to judge too broadly of
Jewish life by the rules which the Talmud shows were laid down by the
rabbis. The Pharisees, who made the formalities of religion their one
business in life, could observe all the multitudinous feasts and fasts,
all the ritual of washings, and bear in mind the innumerable
possibilities of breaking the Sabbath--such, for example, as
accidentally treading on a ripe ear of grain, which would be the act of
threshing; but that the common people lived thus straitly is impossible
of belief, and for this reason they were held in contempt by the
strictest sect. How some of these troublesome laws related to the women
is suggested by Edersheim; "A woman (on the Sabbath) must not wear such
headgear as would require unloosing before taking a bath, nor go out
with such ornaments as could be taken off in the street, such as a
frontlet, unless it is attached to the cap, nor with a gold crown, nor
with a necklace or nose-ring, nor with rings, nor have a pin in her
dress. The reason for this prohibition of ornaments was, that in their
vanity women might take them off to show them to their companions, and
then, forgetful of the day, carry them, which would be a 'burden.' Women
were also forbidden to look in the glass on the Sabbath, because they
might discover a white hair and attempt to pull it out, which would be a
grievous sin; but men ought not to use looking-glasses even on weekdays,
because this was undignified. A woman may walk about her own court, but
not in the street, with false hair."
These are only instances of regulations which were so numerous as
severely to tax the memory of those who did little else but study to
observe them. We are sure that they could not have characterized the
common Jewish life; yet there was not a man, however loose in conduct or
humble of birth, who was not well versed in the moral precepts of Moses
and in the exalted national ideals of the Prophets. In the cases--and
they were many--where this wisdom was not justified of her children, the
punctilious observance of outward forms, conjoined with the most extreme
arrogance of race, laid the Jew open to the contempt of both Greek and
Roman. Yet there was enough latent impetus and genuine religious life in
Israel to form the basis of that Christianity which was destined to
overreach Greek philosophy and to revolutionize Rome; and there are many
indications in the Gospels that the credit for the incalculable service
of preserving alive the smouldering embers of piety must, to a
predominant degree, be awarded to the mothers and daughters of Israel.
Elizabeth, no less than Zacharias her husband, was a type of many who
"walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, blameless."
There was also one Anna whose devotion was so great that she seemed to
make the temple her constant home. Nevertheless, in religion, as in
other things, the Jewish women, as all of their sex in the ancient
world, were obliged to be content with an inferior position. In the
great temple at Jerusalem they were allowed to occupy only the second
court: to the Court of Israel, where their male relatives worshipped,
they could not penetrate. They had no occasion, however, to complain of
lack of space, for in this Court of the Women there was room for over
fifteen thousand persons; and, for their convenience, the priests had
very considerately placed therein the treasury chests. It was here that
the poor widow whom Christ eulogized cast in her "two mites." In this
court also was Solomon's Porch, where the Master, recognizing no
inequality, taught both sexes alike. In the synagogues, the women of
Palestine were obliged to occupy as inconspicuous a position as
possible, and on the way thither it was required of them that they
should take the back and less frequented streets, in order that the
minds of the men might not be diverted from sacred meditations by their
presence. This bit of hypocritical phariseeism not only indicates the
inferior plane which women were supposed to occupy, but also that,
however honored they may have been as wives and mothers, they enjoyed no
portent of that chivalry which afterward grew from and was fostered by
Christianity.
The existence of the Jewish woman was by no means secluded. She was
allowed to mingle freely in outdoor life. She accompanied her family on
their journeys to the great festivals which were held in Jerusalem.
Indeed, we read of Galilean women following Jesus into Judæa, evidently
unescorted by male relatives. Females also entertained mixed companies
in their own homes. It is probable, however, that there was more freedom
of movement among the lower-class women than was enjoyed by their
sisters of high degree. While the former dwelt in mean and small houses,
in which there was little possibility of seclusion, the latter had large
and luxurious homes, with great interior courts and special apartments
for their own use. The luxuriousness of these wealthy women rivalled
that of Rome itself. We read of one Martha, the wife of a high priest,
who, when she went to the temple, had carpets laid from her house to the
door of the temple. Upon the poorer women were imposed the hardships of
labor: "two women grinding at the mill" was a common sight in every
home.
In that momentous drama the leading figure of which was the Son of Man,
women of greatly varying character and position played a part. There
were Herodias, and Procla, the wife of Pilate: these were the highest
ladies in the land; there were Martha of Bethany, and Joanna, the wife
of Herod's steward, representing the middle class; Mary, the mother of
Jesus, from among the poor; and Mary of Magdala, from among a class of
women who were numerous in Palestine, one of whom the Gospel designates
as "a woman who was a sinner."
Of the two first mentioned little may be said in this connection, as
they were far from being Christian women, though the wife of Pilate
earned for herself the respect of all succeeding generations by pleading
for the life of Jesus.
Herodias is connected with this story only on account of the cruel
determination with which she sought and compassed the death of John the
Baptist. The grand-daughter of Herod the Great, she inherited not only
his impetuous ambition, but also his ferocity. She had been married to
Herod Philip, her uncle. This son of the first Herod was a wealthy
private resident of Jerusalem; but Herodias could not be content to
stand aside as a mere spectator of the brilliant game of governing. So
she seized the opportunity which the presence of Antipas in her house,
by her husband's hospitality, gave her to begin an intrigue, which ended
in her marital union with the tetrarch. By this conduct she trampled on
Jewish law and offended the people. Not that the severing of the
marriage bonds was a thing unusual among the Jews; indeed, the
facilities for divorce were exceedingly liberal. A man could put away
his wife for the most trifling cause. "If anyone," said the rabbis, "see
a woman handsomer than his wife, he may dismiss his wife and marry that
woman." It was considered ample cause for divorce if a wife went out
without her veil. The disciples of Hillel even went so far as to hold
that if a woman spoiled her husband's dinner, by burning or over salting
it, sufficient cause was given him, if he so chose, to put her away.
This is the point of the question with which the Pharisees came to try
Christ. "Is it lawful," said they, "for a man to put away his wife for
every cause?" So, then, that which shocked the Jews and caused them to
agree with John in his denunciation of Herod was not that the latter
divorced his first wife, the daughter of Aretas, but that he took
Herodias, she not having been put away by her husband, Philip. Here is
some very remarkable moral sophistry. It would have been right, in the
sight of Jewish law, for Herod and Philip to have exchanged wives, after
legally divorcing them for any cause which might have seemed to them
proper; but there was no law, nor was there any conceivable wrong, which
could give Herodias the right to leave her husband of her own free will.
Women could not gain divorce. So, according to the Jewish idea, the
fault of Herod consisted solely in the fact that Philip had not yet seen
fit to release Herodias. Whether or not John the Baptist concurred with
the ideas of his time on this subject we do not know; but the One who
came after him put marriage on a far higher basis and restricted divorce
to its essential cause.
Herodias plotted and achieved John's destruction perhaps as much on
account of her fear of the effect of his influence upon Herod's
ambitious projects as because of her resentment at his charges against
herself. She was determined that Herod should be a king, like her
brother Agrippa; but the latter was a great favorite with Caligula, and
when his letters were presented to the emperor at the same time that
Herod appeared, in obedience to the importunities of his wife, to press
his suit, the husband of Herodias was deposed and exiled to Lyons. The
only praiseworthy thing that Herodias ever did, so far as is known, was
on this occasion. Caligula wished to allow her to retain her own
fortune, and told her that "it was her brother who prevented her being
put under the same calamity with her husband." This was her reply:
"Thou, indeed, O emperor, actest after a magnificent manner, and as
becomes thyself in what thou offerest me; but the kindness which I have
for my husband hinders me from partaking of the favor of thy gift; for
it is not just that I, who have been made a partner in his prosperity,
should forsake him in his misfortunes." Thereupon Caligula sent her into
banishment with Herod, and gave her estate to Agrippa.
Our curiosity is greatly aroused, but in no degree satisfied, regarding
another woman who dwelt at Jerusalem in the time of Christ. Pilate, the
Roman procurator, had taken his wife with him to Judæa. Tradition has it
that she there became a proselyte to the Jewish faith. This is by no
means unlikely, for throughout the Roman world were found women who had
become converts to the religion of Zion; Josephus, by his own
experience, shows that at a later date even Poppæa, the wife of Nero,
was extremely partial to the Jews. The Greek Church even goes further,
and places Procla in its calendar of saints. Though there is no evidence
extant of her having become a Christian, it need not be considered a
thing impossible; indeed, it is extremely reasonable to suppose that,
having endeavored to save the life of Jesus, the wonderful religious
movement which succeeded His death could not have been unknown or
without interest to Procla. At any rate, certain it is that she had some
knowledge of Jesus, that she was to no small degree disposed in his
favor, and that Pilate's wish to balk the priests in their designs on
Christ's life was, in a large measure, the result of his wife's
influence. But Pilate was caught with the argument that to save the
Prisoner would be a sign of disloyalty to Cæsar. This incident is the
most prominent instance that history affords of the unwisdom of opposing
masculine ratiocinations to feminine moral intuitions.
We now turn to those women of the Gospels who were the acknowledged
friends of Jesus and of the founders of Christianity. The central figure
is, of course, the Blessed Mother--Mary, honored by Christians above all
the daughters of the earth and adored by many millions as the Queen of
Heaven; and yet how inadequate, how meagre is the veritable knowledge we
possess of this immortal woman! Never has human imagination so
magnificently triumphed as in the evolution of the concept of the
Blessed Virgin; never has fond adoration built so marvellous an ideal
upon so scanty a foundation of assured reality. A moderate-sized page
would contain all that is vouchsafed regarding her in the Gospels, yet
who ever disputed the claim for Mary that she is the highest
representative of all that is purest and most beautiful in womanhood.
This much is not a dogma of any church, but a universal feeling. This
prevailing conception of the character of Mary has grown out of the
conviction of what must have been the moral worth of the one fitted to
bear and rear the Son of Man; and it has also resulted to a large degree
from that strong human love for motherhood which seeks a perfect example
on which to expend itself. The Blessed Virgin is womanhood idealized.
She is the personification of all feminine beauty, both of soul and
body; she is the perfect expression of the poet's highest inspiration
and the artist's noblest dream. We cannot help wishing, however, that
more were known of the home life of Mary; the desire to place the
beautiful figure of the Representative Mother in the varied settings of
common feminine life is irresistible, but this can only be done by means
of what little we know of the manners and customs of her people and
time.
As has been said, the sources of information about the Mother of Jesus
are the four Gospels. In addition to these, there are the apocryphal
Christian writings; but these are of too late origin and contain too
many manifestly absurd accounts to warrant credence, except where they
are corroborated by the Evangelists. The latter say nothing whatever of
Mary's direct parentage. She was an offspring of the regal line, that of
David; for though it is most probable that the puzzling genealogies of
Matthew and Luke are those of her husband, Joseph, there are many
reasons for believing that he and Mary were blood relations. Their home
was at Nazareth, a beautiful hill town of Galilee, noted for the
comeliness of its women. At the end of the sixth century, Antoninus
Martyr remarked that the Jewish women of Nazareth were not only fairer
but also more affable to Gentiles than were the other women of
Palestine, and modern travellers inform us that both these
characteristics are still preserved. Geikie says: "The free air of their
mountain home seems to have had its effect on the people of Nazareth.
Its bright-eyed, happy children and comely women strike the traveller,
and even their dress differs from that of other parts.... That of the
women usually consists of nothing but a long blue garment tied in round
the waist, a bonnet of red cloth, decorated with an edging or roll of
silver coins, bordering the forehead and extending to the ears,
reminding one of the crescent-shaped female head-dress worn by some of
the Egyptian priestesses. Over this, a veil or shawl of coarse white
cotton is thrown, which hangs down to the waist, serving to cover the
mouth, while the bosom is left exposed, for Eastern and Western ideas of
decorum differ in some things.... In a country where nothing changes,
through age after age, the dress of to-day is very likely, in most
respects, the same as it was two thousand years ago, though the
prevailing color of the Hebrew dress, at least in the better classes,
was the natural white of the materials employed, which the fuller made
even whiter."
We are not informed on the authority of the Gospels as to Mary's age
when she was espoused to Joseph the carpenter. The apocryphal _Gospel of
Mary_ states that she was fourteen, while the _Protevangelion_ places
her age at twelve, which is in accordance with the custom of the East,
where girls mature much earlier than with us. The betrothal consisted of
mutual promises and the exchange of gifts in the presence of chosen
witnesses, followed by the engaged couple ceremonially tasting of the
same cup of wine, and was ended with a benediction pronounced by a
priest or a rabbi. After these solemn espousals the relation between
Mary and Joseph was as sacred as though marriage had really taken place;
the only difference was that the couple did not yet live together. The
woman was not allowed to withdraw from the contract, and the man could
not fail to fulfil his promise unless he gave her a formal bill of
divorcement for cause, as in the case of marriage; the laws relating to
adultery were also applicable. Yet many months might intervene between
the date of the betrothal and that of the marriage.
What took place during this interval in the life of the Virgin is a
mystery which it would be a vain attempt to investigate. If it be judged
of from a purely rationalistic standpoint, there are no historical and
no scientific data which will enable us to do otherwise than simply
discredit the accounts of the Nativity, as they are given by Matthew and
Luke. On the other hand, if the narrative of Christ's birth is accepted
with that reverent faith which has endured through nineteen centuries of
Christendom, and has been and still is held by men of unrivalled
intellect, there is nothing more to be said than the language of worship
and wonder. We may well regret that John and Mark, or at least one of
the epistolary writers, did not corroborate the testimony of the two
first-named Evangelists; the scant importance Mary seems to have
acquired in the Apostolic Church may appear inconsistent with the
stupendous nature of her experiences; yet here is no subject for vain
reasoning; we stand before a mystery which belongs wholly to the realm
of faith. The science of Christology demands the acceptance of this
supernatural event. But it is as little within the province of this book
to defend the faith as it is to apply the canons of Higher Criticism to
the writings of the New Testament.
In the picture which the Scriptures give us of Mary there is no touch so
human as that which represents her, at the first intimation of the
coming of her Son, hastening southward to confer with her cousin
Elizabeth. To a woman must the news first be whispered, before it gains
the observation of the man to whom she is espoused; and not to the
gossips of Nazareth, but to her holy and sober-minded kinswoman alone
could Mary impart her hopes and her fears. Poetic expression was a
Jewish woman's birthright; Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, and Judith, each had
magnified the Lord with a song; let Mary also, in the assurance that her
Offspring is to be the Messiah long foretold, voice the exultation of
her soul in like manner. "Behold, from henceforth, all generations shall
call me blessed.... He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and
exalted them of low degree."
Augustus Cæsar sent forth an edict that all the world should be taxed.
It was an act of which we should have known little and thought less, had
it not marked the occasion of the birth of Him to whom the world will
never cease to pay a tribute of homage.
In the birth of Jesus, the mystery of motherhood is glorified, nay,
almost deified. Mankind needed that also. The pagan world had always
sought to satisfy feelings which are deep rooted in the human heart by
conceiving of maternity under the form of a divine personality. A
religion which does not, in some way, recognize in its object the loving
kindness and the painful solicitude of the mother heart cannot survive.
Mary is a symbol of that natural tender reverence and supreme confidence
which motherhood inspires. The shepherds knelt before her in the stable
which the necessities of poverty made the scene of her lying-in, for the
inestimable graces of the mother depend not upon wealth or earthly
splendor. The Wise Men from the East brought their gifts, for there is
no greater wisdom than that which pays its homage before the babe at its
mother's breast.
In the one great experience of maternity Mary's greatness ends, so far
as the records show. Did she settle down to all appearances as an
ordinary Nazareth housewife? Did she bear to Joseph other children? To
many, the latter question seems like sacrilege; and yet there is nothing
of authority written to the contrary.
Tradition has it that Joseph died early in their married life. Mary then
was dependent for her support upon her Son's labors. Did He refrain from
His chief calling until He was thirty years of age in order that He
might know not only common toil but also filial duty in the support of
the mother? Was it to consult on some family business that His mother
and His brethren stood outside the house where He was teaching, being
desirous to speak with Him? All these questions are to us unanswerable;
but it surely does not detract from the sacredness of the pictures to
infuse into it every possible element of human interest.
The Gospels turn their light once more, and for the last time, on Mary.
It reveals her at the foot of the Cross. Each of the Synoptists tells us
that many women followed Him out of Galilee; by John alone is Mary
mentioned as being present at the Crucifixion. "When Jesus saw his
mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he saith unto his
mother, 'Woman, behold thy son.' Then saith he to the disciple, 'Behold
thy mother.' And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own
home." Why was this so if Mary had other living sons? John, who it is
probable was her own sister's son, would immediately lead the Mother
away from the terrible scene, where a sword was also piercing her own
soul, to a place where she could await the announcement of the end. The
fact that there is no record of an appearance to Mary after the
Resurrection must be accounted for by the belief that her faith did not
need this, in its assurance that death could not conquer her divine Son.