NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... and had control over the wife in much the same way that he did over the children. He was the one with the power and she was not. Wives were not permitted so much as to dispense alms or to change their clothes without the husbands permission. Again, as with the sons, the wife had a love-fear relationship to the husband. Most all-domestic disputes were kept within the four walls of the home the wife was the most likely looser at the hand of stronger husband.
Often when the husband was upset or in a rage it was the wife that was the looser, she was usually the first in his path. As well husbands were not always faithful the wives. It was almost seen as a customary practice. The husband was to have a woman outside of the marriage. The same leisure was not extended to the wife. The wife was watched over by the husband as if she were domestic property.
This was to prevent her from having relationships with other men. Maltreatment of the wife could often be a common occurrence. Often the only defense that the wife had was to promote the idea of love and respect between the partners. Shaw Concludes saying not all relationships were this way, however this was the case for a lot of married women. These ideas are similar to ones from classical times in which the wife was under the husband, and the husband acted almost as a teacher to the wife. In classical times the wife was to be pure and devoted to only one man, as Shaw states.
In the Oroark essay once again this is a topic that is left out. In the talk of parent to child relationships it can be assumed that Oroark left out husband-wife relations because they were not central to his argument. Once again it is not the case that the two historians disagreed on the subject, but only the fact that one included this information in their argument and the other did not.
Shaw uses one main source so often it is basically his only source. The Source he uses is a Roman church father from late antiquity, Augustine. Augustine switched over to Christianity. After he was baptized and converted he became the Bishop of Hippo until he died. Augustine wrote many important theological writings in the late fourth and early fifth century on the church, Christianity, and God. There are a few strengths and weaknesses to Augustine as a source, Shaw points to some of these.
Starting with the strengths, it can be concluded that Augustine held a privileged status within the Christian church. Augustine came from a good family and was a respected man. His accounts are usually assumed to be accurate records. Just as today we value the writings and opinions of the church heads, it seems that given his status at the time one could value his accounts based on his position. Who better to leave accounts of Roman society then a church head, who was educated and could record many of the events in society. Augustine is also a good source for the fact that most of the sources of the time are biased to the upper class ideals and practices.
Augustine's church based writings and opinions might be slightly different, and hence valuable as a different opinion. Lastly Augustine is valuable for the most obvious reason; he was a firsthand witness who was living at the time. As the Bishop of Hippo Augustine was able to have first hand observation of many families and parishioners to base his writings. Thanks to his position, as Bishop, Augustine had both the time and resources to observe and write. These opportunities may not have been available to those in lower, less well off positions in society.
On the other hand there is some noticeable problems with this source. The main one being that preaching and practicing are two different things. Augustine has no surviving writings from the time before his conversion to Christianity. This being the case we cannot compare his writings to early ones of his own. If one had access to his earlier writings they might show a change in his ideas based on his conversion, thus Christianity may bias his writings.
Augustine wrote about the family and society in the way that he thought is should be. This however does not necessarily mean that this is an accurate depiction of how Roman society and family actually was. In fact what Augustine wrote about was probably not identical to what common practice. Another important weakness to Augustine is that his writings are biased in a male ideology of Roman society. His thoughts are based on male power, action and assumptions about society. Lastly Augustine lived in a religious community in Hippo.
His main observed group was its religious community. Augustine's writings are based on the segments of society that he could to observe, and then generalized to the larger society. One has to wonder if what applies for one group of society can be generalized to the rest. In general Augustine was is a fairly good source, however one must remember that his writings are to be taken with some of these considerations. Oroark, also chooses to use one main source, which is basically the only source that he uses. The source Oroark uses is a church father, John Chrysostom.
Until he was the age of 50 he served in Antioch, where most of his preachings were against Judaism. In 398 he became a bishop in Constantinople and died in 407. Chrysostom wrote about the same time that of Augustine, late three hundreds and early four hundreds. With the similarities in status and time period we see that there are a lot of the same strengths and weaknesses of the sources. As strength it is recognized that Chrysostom was a reliable rhetorician. Chrysostom was an educated man that had much experience with religion.
With a more leisured life of a Bishop, and a good education Chrysostom was probably well learned and fairly accurate. His position as Bishop probably allowed him to observe the area that he practiced in. Also Chrysostom was also a firsthand witness of what he wrote about. There are also some apparent weaknesses to Chrysostom. First most of his audience was wealthy upper class.
This may not be able to be applied to society as a whole. This is similar to Augustine. It was not like either of these men could get up and travel around all of Rome to view society, instead they had to rely on those close to observe. Again, men were seen to occupy a more privileged position is society. Chrysostom's views, like those of Augustine's, were probably biased by the dominated male views and ideologies about how society was seen. The analysis of Chrysostom is shorter then that of Augustine for the fact that as I mentioned they have many of the same strengths and weaknesses.
Chrysostom is a fairly reliable source, but we must remember to take some of his weaknesses into account. Both sources have their share of strengths and weaknesses.
Shaw leaves the reader with a clear picture of the Roman family in late antiquity. The Oroark essay was equally convincing in his own right. Oroark sets out to prove there were close relationships between parents and children in roman society, and does a good job of this. Oroark's essay is especially well done because he not only looks at father-son relations, but also at mother-daughter relations. This is very important. Many of the sources remaining are written mainly about men.
It is great that we are able to take at a brief look into one of the roles of the woman in the Roman family. The bottom line is that Shaw writes about the structure and the functions of the Roman family. From the evidence in this essay one can see he supports his purpose well. Both authors looked at aspects of the family after the advent of Christianity.
Both historians seek to prove something about the Roman family in late antiquity. In doing this they give us a reference of the family after the advent of Christianity, this in turn can be compared to the Roman family in the classical period. After comparison of the two essays against each other, and against the family in the classical period it seems obvious: The Roman family has always been an important institution in their society, its composition, roles and the functions changed little after the advent of Christianity.
Two Traditions. Readings in the Roman Family. (Winter 2002): 15 - 54, 196 - 206. Oroark, Douglas. Parenthood in Late Antiquity: The Evidence of Chrysostom. Readings in the Roman Family. (Winter 2002): 53 - 81. Shaw, Brent.
The Family in Late Antiquity: The Experience of Augustine. Readings in the Roman Family, (Winter 2002): 3 - 51.
Free research essays on topics related to: strengths and weaknesses, late antiquity, upper class, roman society, classical period
Research essay sample on The Roman Family Center Of Society
