|
| childhood
in roman culture |
Date:
Sun, 11 Feb 1996
From:
"Ivan J. Kauffman"
Subject:
Childhood in Roman
This
query is prompted by the following two items: 1. Augustine of Hippo,
in the City of God, makes the following statement (in the context of
discussing the necessity to punish young children in order for them
to learn): " In fact is there anyone who, faced with the choice
between death and a second childhood, would not shrink in dread from
the latter prospect and elect to die?" (Bk. 21, Ch. 14;
Bettenson trans.) 2. In a report on the excavation of a 5th century
CE cemetery in Umbria (which appeared in the New York Times Science
section July 26, 1994; original report in "current issue"
of Archeology) numerous newborn children were found among those
buried. The NYT writer summarized the interpretation of the team
leader, Dr. David Soren of U. Arizona at Tuscon, as follows: "But
the Christian influence must have been established by then...Since
Christians baptized infants and considered them significant humans
at least from birth, they could not merely discard the bodies of
dead infants or bury them uncerimoniously within houses, as had been
the earlier Roman practice." The questions which these bits of
evidence suggest are: 1. Was childhood in the Roman empire actually
as ghastly as Augustine suggests? 2. Was the Christian treatment of
children significantly differently than the prevailing culture? The
comments of any readers of this list whose expertise permits them to
shed additional light on this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Ivan J. Kauffman "From Moses to Gandhi" Washington, D.C.
Date:
Mon, 12 Feb 1996
From:
BRUMFIELD-A
Subject: Re: Childhood in Roman Culture
On
the development of the concept of childhood inm odern bourgeois
society, read Philippe Aries 'Centuries of Childhood'. I wish I knew
something as authoritative about ancient childhood.I would say that
childhood was pretty grim until about 1950 (or do I mean 1850).
Date:
Wed, 14 Feb 1996
From:
Paul Crawford
Subject:
Childhood in Roman Culture
Few medieval scholars accept Aries' views. I can't speak for ancient
historians, but I'm under the impression Aries has been pretty
thoroughly rejected everywhere (except on the popular level, where
his ideas surface in the oddest places, such as RPG manuals!). See,
for instance, Barbara Hanawalt (_Growing Up in Medieval London_ and
other works). Aries' claim that parents didn't really love their
children runs counter both to observed human nature and to abundant
documentation of parental affection. Consider Perpetua's father's
agony over her approaching execution, and his attempt to get her to
recant Christianity by reminding her how he had favored her as a
child. Or Cicero's (I think) love for his daughter.... Whether one's
childhood is grim or not probably depends on factors other than
one's mere position in the flow of history.
Date:
Wed, 14 Feb 1996
From:
Nick Nicastro
Subject:
Re: Childhood in Roman Culture
I
agree. Also, I can't see the tragic power of the "Medea"
story if parents didn't love their children in antiquity.
Date:
Wed, 14 Feb 1996
From:
BRUMFIELD-A
Subject:
Re: Childhood in Roman
Aries did not say that parents didn't love their children. It's a
little more subtle than that.
Date:
Wed, 14 Feb 1996
From:
David Meadows
Subject: Re: Childhood in Roman Culture
This
is a huge topic and there are many variables to work in. If we're
assuming someone from the lower classes, it wouldn't have been
overly pleasant (but it wouldn't have been too pleasant for adults,
either); for upper classes, there were other things to worry about
-- I don't have Augustine at hand but I assume he is speaking in the
context of his education, which would have involved the topos of the
evil schoolmaster who beat the Iliad and Odyssey and Aeneid into
students with a stick.
>2.
Was the Christian treatment of children significantly differently
than >the prevailing culture?
I don't think there is any evidence one way or the other on this
one, save that Christians seem to have had a penchant for rescuing
`exposed' children. By the way, I'd be wary of the report that the
Romans merely `discarded' children or buried them within the house
-- the evidence for such things is quite scant; cremation, whether
of adults or children doesn't leave much evidence behind. A good
intro to the lifestyle of upper class children (with a good
bibliography to take you elsewhere) is T. Wiedemann's Adults and
Children in the Roman Empire.
Date:
Thu, 15 Feb 1996
From:
David Meadows
Subject: Childhood in Roman Culture
As
a footnote to my previous post, I did a quick check on epigraph and
found 3 very interesting sepulchral inscriptions: CIL 6.1334 which
was set up for someone who vixit diebus xlv (45 days); 6.1457 for
someone who vixit menses IIII dies VII (4 months, seven days); 1458
for someone who lived mensibus sex diebus xxi (six months, 21 days).
Good evidence, I think, against the archaeologists' unsupported view
that Romans merely 'discarded' dead kiddies -- there are probably
more examples (which are interesting since I've never come across a
study which mentions these inscriptions in the context of feeling
for children). As for Aries, I don't think many people anywhere
accept his views anymore; they were popular in the 80's for a while
as classics adopted a more sociological perspective, but we have
pretty much moved on from that (Mark Golden has written some
Aries-like articles on the Greeks and their children and whether
they had any affection for them/cared when they died, but ultimately
seems to distance himself from his view. Aries big silly thing was
claiming that the concept of `childhood' was not invented until the
middle ages; prior to that, supposedly, because in art and such
children appear as miniature adults, there was no concept of
childhood as we define it (i.e. a separate age category from
youth/adulthood; Aries views are a bit more complex than that, but
that's the main gist -- it's also utter hogwash; he obviously didn't
look into Roman or even Greek practices very deeply -- by the way,
does anyone know why he picked the starting point he did? It seems
rather arbitrary to me.)
Date:
Thu, 15 Feb 1996
From:
MARK SNEGG
Subject:
Re: Childhood in Roman Culture
Here
is another beautiful little inscription from Roman Britain (York, I
think), which supports David Meadows' point of view : 'D.M.
Simpliciae Florentinae animae innocentissimae quae vixit menses
decem, Felicius Simplex pater fecit Leg. VI V.' 'For the Gods, for
the Ancestors, for the very innocent soul of Simplicia Florentina,
who lived for ten months, her father Felicius Simplex of the 6th
Legion Victrix made this.' This conjures up a pleasing image of a
rough but honest and good-hearted ('simplex') soldier who was very
attached to his baby daughter.
Date:
Thu, 15 Feb 1996
From:
"Timothy M. Teeter"
Subject: Re: childhood in Roman culture
This
is an interesting discussion which raises some issues I dealt with
in a seminar last summer. However, before we go any further, perhaps
a distinction is necessary. What do we mean when we say 'childhood'?
Infancy? This seems to be the subject of the inscriptions cited thus
far. One theory has it that Romans showed minimal affection for
infants because their chances of infant survival were so slim,
whatever the class. The emotional investment was too risky at so
young an age. Or are we discussing ages of say 5 to 10, when the
chances of a child surviving in the ancient world were significantly
improved? How old were the children at this excavation? Tim Teeter
Date:
Thu, 15 Feb 1996
From:
Julie Chelette-Vila
Subject:
childhood
It
is consistently amazing to me how students of ancient history all of
a sudden have this "a-ha!" mentality when research or
discoveries point to the facts that ancient peoples were "just
like us" as far as human emotions, sensitivities and problems
of everyday life are concerned. Human nature, aspirations, emotions
and thought are timeless - so we "moderns" should be
careful not to be too pedantic about the human condition. Childhood
has always been fraught with vulnerability and problems and there
are peoples and cultures today who it can be said "do not love
their children". There is infanticide, starvation, lack of
proper social services and a host of other systems and behaviors
that can be said are unfriendly or show a lack of love for children.
And maybe as someone said, Aires was being more subtle.
Date:
Tue, 20 Feb 1996
From:
Laine Markley
Subject:
Re: Childhood in Roman Culture
If
I remember correctly, the Roman children found buried in the ruins
of the villa had died of some disease. The context indicated they
were victims of an epidemic of some kind. If that is indeed the case
,this might not be a representive burial. Don't know if that makes
any difference or not.
Date:
Fri, 16 Feb 1996
From:
"Ivan J. Kauffman"
Subject: Re: Childhood in Roman Culture
In response to the request for more information about the ages of
the children found buried in the cemetery in Umbria: The New York
Times Science report, which is based on interviews with the
archeological team members, indicates that 49 skeletons had been
recovered at that point (in 1994). Some were premature infants,
others were neonates less than one month, and others were up to 5-6
months old. One skeleton of a child 2-3 years old was found. The
excavation is not complete so that these numbers could change
significantly. "The older children were generally buried in
more elaborate graves, but the others were often interred amid
refuse from the abandoned villa, further evidence, Dr. Soren said,
of the Roman belief that newborn infants were not ' worthwhile
family members and should not be lamented much if they died.' "
says the NYT report. This archeologist interprets his findings as
evidence for a major epidemic of malaria in c.450.
Date:
Mon, 19 Feb 1996
From:
David Meadows
Subject:
Re: Childhood in Roman Culture
>"The older children were generally buried in more elaborate
graves, but the >others were often interred amid refuse from the
abandoned villa, further >evidence, Dr. Soren said, of the Roman
belief that newborn infants were not ' >worthwhile family members
and should not be lamented much if they died.' " >says the
NYT report. > >This archeologist interprets his findings as
evidence for a major epidemic of >malaria in c.450.
I
think I recognize this now ... is this the same dig which has
recently been published in either AJA or JRA (I can't remember where
I read it, but I suspect one of the people I share an office with
had it). As I recall, it was more than just infants who were
interred amid the refuse
|
|