Summary of arguments against the consensus view that aristocratic women were key to the rise of Christianity in the Late Roman Empire. Based on "The Making of a Christian Aristocracy" by M. Salzman
I enjoyed this, and would raise 2 points in response:
1. It's my understanding that many of the pagan Saxon kings in Britain converted (along with their kingdoms) at the moment of taking or under the influence of a Christian wife from the continent. Obviously that's much later and in a context in which membership of 'Christendom' offered huge perks for an up-and-coming warlord, but interesting to compare and contrast.
2. On the topic of contemporary ideologies being projected back into the past, I'd politely suggest that it seems unlikely a 1900s German theologian described Helena of Constantinople and women like her as 'upper middle class.'
Thank you for ur feedback! 2) I had noticed the misshap and corrected it. It's weird that you seem to be seeing the old version. Unless I made the mistake in multiple places and not seeing it.
Re: 1. I think it would be an interesting comparison, indeed. My suspicion is that barbarian paganism was much less entrenched and related to status than Roman paganism. So barbaric Kings were keen to convert and be associated with the glory of Old Roman (Which by the time we are discussing about was associated more with Christianity). The situation with Roman aristocracy is a bit different because at the time Christianity was introduced, being a Pagan aristocrat was already the highest status thing
The other thing I would add about 1): notice the difference between being influenced by a wife through a marriage that was convenient and was actually negotiated by men (the father of the wife and that of the groom) and the idea that aristocratic Roman women converted to Christianity out of their own volition and then brought Christianity to their passive husbands. There are different dynamics and it relies less on a presupposition of female freedom
TIL syntyche is a name
I enjoyed this, and would raise 2 points in response:
1. It's my understanding that many of the pagan Saxon kings in Britain converted (along with their kingdoms) at the moment of taking or under the influence of a Christian wife from the continent. Obviously that's much later and in a context in which membership of 'Christendom' offered huge perks for an up-and-coming warlord, but interesting to compare and contrast.
2. On the topic of contemporary ideologies being projected back into the past, I'd politely suggest that it seems unlikely a 1900s German theologian described Helena of Constantinople and women like her as 'upper middle class.'
Thank you for ur feedback! 2) I had noticed the misshap and corrected it. It's weird that you seem to be seeing the old version. Unless I made the mistake in multiple places and not seeing it.
Re: 1. I think it would be an interesting comparison, indeed. My suspicion is that barbarian paganism was much less entrenched and related to status than Roman paganism. So barbaric Kings were keen to convert and be associated with the glory of Old Roman (Which by the time we are discussing about was associated more with Christianity). The situation with Roman aristocracy is a bit different because at the time Christianity was introduced, being a Pagan aristocrat was already the highest status thing
The other thing I would add about 1): notice the difference between being influenced by a wife through a marriage that was convenient and was actually negotiated by men (the father of the wife and that of the groom) and the idea that aristocratic Roman women converted to Christianity out of their own volition and then brought Christianity to their passive husbands. There are different dynamics and it relies less on a presupposition of female freedom
Seems correct now - I saw the link to it via notes before, maybe that pulled through a cached version.
thank you!
I was expecting something slightly different, use of the data set to show that conversions grew more from sociological factors than belief.