children from the dung heap
DESCRIPTION
A treatise examining the pagan rationale for infant exposure/abandonment in 1st Century EgyptTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Children From the Dung Heap](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051820/552979374a79597c158b478f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
CORNERSTONE UNIVERSITY
CHILDREN FROM THE DUNG HEAP:
A TREATISE EXPLORING THE MOTIVATION BEHIND AND JUSTIFICATION
FOR INFANT EXPOSURE IN EGYPT IN THE ROMAN AGE
WRITTEN FOR
HRY-432: HISTORY AND RELIGION OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST
DR. SCOTT CARROLL
BY
BRIAN TICE / BOX 3594
1 MAY 2008
![Page 2: Children From the Dung Heap](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051820/552979374a79597c158b478f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Tice
Though it is not altogether cerrain specifically whence it originated or how it
developed,1 by the first century of the Common Era, a peculiar practice is in place in
Egypt and throughout most of the Roman world. Infant exposure, or expositio, was
viewed by most of the Roman World, including Egypt, as an acceptable solution to
unwanted children.2 This treatise will examine the practice, primarily as it existed in
Egypt, in an attempt to determine the justification for employing infant exposure, at least
as it pertained to that region, not through the lens of Christian morality, but to seek an
understanding of the first century pagan moral position on the matter.
Since infant exposure was not a formal process, it would be reasonable to expect that
few official records accompany the act. Boswell’s work confirms this, conveying,
“Abandonment of children provided, in fact, the primary means that ancient and medieval
families had for regulating familial size and shape, but records for it are scarce….”3
Seneca elaborates on the point thus: “You will not find [exposed children] in a census,
nor in any wills;… they are not counted anywhere.”4
There is, however, a scattering of records accounting for wet-nurses being hired to
wean and provide infant care to foundling children.5 From those, an estimate can be
ventured as to the frequency of the practice and the near inevitability of such children’s
induction into the slave system. Though there were laws in place preventing a child born
free from being entered into the slave system, nothing protected exposed infants, their
1 The earliest known Roman law code, the “Twelve Tables,” dates to about 450 B.C.E. and allows the paterfamilias to expose any female infant and any malformed or weak male infant. It is now entirely clear how much earlier the practice dates to. The biblical account of Mose’s exposure (Exodus 2:1-10) is not reflective of an established or usual practice for that time, but is often referenced in studies on expositio.2 John Eastburn Boswell, “Expositio and Oblatio: The Abandonment of Children and the Ancient and Medieval Family.” American Historical Review 89, no. 1. (Feb 1984): 12.3 Ibid.4 Seneca the Elder, Controversiae 10.4.13-14 (ed. Michael Winterbottom, [Cambridge, MA: Loeb’s Classical Library, 1974], 434-6): “non in censu illos invenies, non in testamentis;… in nullo numero sunt.”5 David L. Balch, Early Christian Families in Context: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003), 260.
1
![Page 3: Children From the Dung Heap](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051820/552979374a79597c158b478f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Tice
parentage not being known, from such a fate, and the practice was far from rare.6 It was
so widespread, in fact, that Tacitus expressed amazement upon realizing that the practice
was not at all existent among the Jews.7
It appeared initially that only two documents from first century Egypt dealt
specifically with the matter at hand, those being P.Oxy. XXXVII and P.Oxy. XXXVIII.8
Both of these concern the same court proceeding (dated 49 C.E.), Pesouris v. Seraeus.
The case involved a foundling infant taken in by Pesouris with the intention of raising the
child to be a slave. P.Oxy. XXXVII, a perhaps abbreviated transcript of the court
proceeding, indicates that the child was placed under the care of a wet-nurse, Seraeus,
during which time the child died of starvation. Pesouris, in retribution, seized Seraeus’s
own child to replace the deceased foundling. He then sued Seraeus for a refund of the
wages he had paid to her, claiming that she had switched the children and testifying that
the remaining child was actually his foundling, her consanguine child having been the
one who had died.
The court ruled in the wet-nurse’s favor, which ruling Pesouris ignored, prompting
her husband to draft P.Oxy. XXXVIII, a petition asking the court to enforce its ruling to
have Pesouris return the nursemaid’s child to her.9 These two documents demonstrate the
lower value placed on the exposed child or foundling as compared to the child of known
parentage, and there is sufficient corroborating testimony in early sources to determine
6 Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, transl. Oxyrhynchus Papyri vol. 1 (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1898), 80. 7 Tacitus, The Histories (ca. 98 C.E.), 5.5.8 The “Oxyrhynchus Papyri” were discovered and originally published by Grenfell and Hunt under the auspices of the Egypt Exploration Fund. Though initially kept intact, the collection has since been dispersed to universities throughout the western world and Egypt.9 The text to both of these documents (in Greek and in English) is supplied in Appendices A and B, respectively.
2
![Page 4: Children From the Dung Heap](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051820/552979374a79597c158b478f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Tice
that the slave system was the usual destination for exposed children who survived
exposure in the first century context.
As seen in Pesouris v. Seraeus (P.Oxy. XXXVII and XXXVIII), if it could be
demonstrated that a male slave was born free, he would be loosed from the slave
system.10 The same cannot be said of female foundlings, for whom no such provision is
ordered in the law codes, the majority of these being relegated to the slave system.11 It
can also be established from available records that female infants were exposed at a
higher rate than male infants. Census declarations, for instance, declare a ratio of two
female slaves to each male slave, interpreted by Bagnall as “evidence for differential
rates of infant exposure and enslavement” rather than to such a birth ratio among slaves.12
This observation is supported, as well, in informal documents from the time. P.Oxy.
DCCXLIV is a letter dated to the year 1 B.C.E. from a man called Hilarion to a pregnant
woman, Alis, probably his wife, though the text addresses her as “sister.”13 In the letter,
Hilarion instructs Alis to keep her child if it is male, but to throw it out (2nd person
present active imperative of ejkbavllw) if it is female.14 One reason may be that raising
a female child in the first century was more costly to a family than raising a male child.
This was due primarily to the dowry requirement which attached to a marriageable
female.15 There is record, as well, of the emperor Claudius exposing a female child born
10 Grenfell and Hunt, op. cit., vol. I, 80.11 Gnomon of the Idios Logos, §381.12 Roger S. Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity (Princeton, 1993), 202.13 See Appendix C for the full text and translation of this letter.14 Grenfell and Hunt, op. cit., vol. IV, 243-4.15 Theodore Mommsen and Paul Krueger, eds,. Iustiniani Digestae edition minor (Berlin, 1882), 23.2.45.6: Si ab hostibus patronus captus esse proponatur, vereor ne possit ista conubium habere nubendo, quemadmodum haberet, si mortuus esset. et qui Iuliani sententiam probant, dicerent non habituram conubium: putat enim Iulianus durare eius libertae matrimonium etiam in captivitate propter patroni reverentiam. certe si in aliam servitutem patronus sit deductus, procul dubio dissolutum esset matrimonium.
3
![Page 5: Children From the Dung Heap](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051820/552979374a79597c158b478f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Tice
to his wife Urgulanilla, believing her to be have been sired through adultery,16 which also
seems to be a popular motive for infant exposure. It would stand to reason that a man
would not want to provide a dowry for a child he suspected was not his own.
This disproportionate number of female exposed children was exploited by the slaver-
dealers who picked up the vast majority of them. Balch observes, “Young female slaves
were prized for their reproductive potential.”17 Female slaves essentially served as
breeding stock for the production of the subsequent generation of slaves and as wet-
nurses or courtesans to raise their own children and whatever foundlings might be
brought in until such age as they could be sold as slaves (usually by age twelve, the age at
which they became “taxable goods”).
Personhood in the Roman world was tied to civil status, and slaves having none were
thus viewed as “things” rather than persons. An abandoned person was assumed to be a
res nullius thing, not a person, and thus, in accordance with Roman law, became the
property of whoever picked him or her up.18 The Gnomon of the Idios Logos secures
inheritance rights to male foundlings,19 thus giving the impression that there is some
inherent human value to them, but no such right is afforded to female foundlings.20
There are recorded cases when the circumstances behind an occurrence of expositio
render the act “justifiable” by the birth parent even in tandem with knowledge that
slavery would likely ensue. Augustus, for example, is said to have ordered the exposure
of the child of his granddaughter Julia.21 It is interesting to note that though Augustus
16 C. Suetonius Tranquillus, Divus Augustus (ca. 121 C.E.), XXXII.17 Balch, op. cit., 260.18 Catholic Encyclopedia: “Roman Law,” <www.newadvent.org/cathen/09079a.htm>. 19 Gnomon of the Idios Logos, §§41, 107.20 Griechische Urkunden, Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen Museen zu Berlin, 4.1106, 1107.21 Suetonius, op. cit., LXV.3: “Ex nepte Iulia post damnationem editum infantem adgnosci alique vetuit.”
4
![Page 6: Children From the Dung Heap](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051820/552979374a79597c158b478f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Tice
encouraged Roman citizens to “have large families and also to raise children born out of
wedlock,”22 he ordered the exposure of his own great granddaughter.
It was not generally the aim of parents to intentionally expose their children to harm
or even to enter them into slavery. Expositio was the most benign option available to the
ancient world in response to the inopportune birth of a child, the remaining options
including abortion and infanticide.23 Tertullian recognizes that the motivation behind
expositio was often to offer the child a better life than could be provided by the birth
family.24 Popular mythology, in fact, lent to the hope that the abandoned child might fare
well, looking to the examples of exposed deities Poseidon, Hephaestus, Asclepius, et al.
Lactantius discusses, however, that the possibility existed that the child could fall
prey to wild animals or in later years, surviving exposure, become sexually involved with
consanguine family members without either party realizing that the act was incestuous.25
The polemic nature of that work allows room for such statements to be interpreted as
intentionally exaggerated to strengthen Lactantius’s argument and might be justifiably
approached with an appropriate measure of discernment. That others echo his concern
regarding the latter scenario, however, may suggest that such was known to have
occurred.26
The discovery of inscriptions to children bearing the name Eujtichvs, which means
“happily found,” may indicate that these refer to children who were exposed by their
birth parents,27 no formal system of adoption being known to have existed until the 3rd or
22 John M. Riddle, Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992).23 Infanticide would be outlawed long before expositio would, limiting the options even further. 24 Tertullian, Ad Nationes 1.3.16: “imprimis cum infants uestros alienae misericordiae exponitis aut in adoptionem melioribus parentibus.” 25 Lactantius, The Divine Institutes (3rd Century CE), 6.20.26 Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 3.3 (ca. 189-200), 8:585; Justin Martyr, op. cit., 27.27 Boswell, op. cit., 15.
5
![Page 7: Children From the Dung Heap](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051820/552979374a79597c158b478f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Tice
4th Century C.E. Available sources seem to indicate, however, that relatively few exposed
children find themselves raised as the finder’s child. Brunt states, “By exposing the
newborn child, it might then be picked up and reared by a chance finder, either as his
child, or more probably, as his slave.”28
Most of the children involved in the practice had come to be called “children from the
dung heap,”29 kovpria in Greek, perhaps as a justification for the practice as something
which negatively impacted only the lowest of the low, and was thus acceptable. Perdrizet
observes that several first century names found in the region begin with Kovpr- and
likely derive from the word kovpria. He deduces that children given such names were
likely exposed as infants and so named because of how common a moniker it had
become.30 The Gnomon of the Idios Logos corroborates the frequency of usage of the
word kovpria in connection to exposed infants,31 possibly to establish them as being
without civil status so that any moral objection to their enslavement might be
preemptively undermined.
Based on the use of the term in other writings of the time, kovpria seems to, in this
usage, be a metaphoric expression rather than a literal one. An example applying such to
another context is found in an address to a convicted adulterer recorded in Epictetus’s
Discourses:
If, being a man, you are unable to fill any place that befits a man, what shall we
do with you? So suppose you cannot hold the place of a friend, can you hold the
place of a slave? Who will trust you? Are you not then content that you also be
28 P. A. Brunt, Italian Manpower 225 B.C. – A.D. 14 (Oxford, 1971), 148.29 Gnomon of the Idios Logos, §§41, 92, 107.30 Paul Perdrizet, “Copria” (1921). Cited in Pomeroy, Sarah B. “Copronyms and the Exposure of Infants in Egypt.” A. Arthur Schiller, Roger S. Bagnall, and William Vernon Harris, eds. Studies in Roman Law in Memory of A. Arthur Schiller. (E. B. Brill, 1986), 147. 31 Gnomon of the Idios Logos, §§41, 92, 107.
6
![Page 8: Children From the Dung Heap](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051820/552979374a79597c158b478f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Tice
pitched somewhere on a dung heap as a useless utensil, a bit of dung? Then you
will say, “No man cares for me? A man of letters?” They do not because you are
bad and useless.32
Strabo also uses the term in such a way, stating, “The Dardanians are so utterly wild that
they dig caves beneath their dunghills and live there….”33 The usage there is figurative
in order to label the Dardanians as uncivilized, the same general sense as the expositio
references and that of Epictetus. This and other such instances indicate that though the
literal meaning is in use at the time (cf. Luke 13:8),34 it also bears, during the same epoch,
a metaphorical sense, and likely conveys such in regard to exposed infants rather than a
sense that they are thrown out onto a literal dung heap.
It has been documented that exposed children were frequently left not on dung heaps,
but at sites routinely frequented by slave-dealers, since slavery would be a more humane
fate than the death which might ensue were the child to be exposed and not picked up.
Boswell notes, “In the most common method of expositio in the ancient world parents
simply left the child somewhere: on a hillside, beside a road, in the woods.”35 Martyr
alleges that slave-dealers arduously searched out abandoned infants to snatch up and
raised them to be prostitutes or slaves.36
This may indicate that the places these children were left became popular with slave-
dealers as a result of their previously established popularity with child exposers. Plinius
Secundus writes, however, that parents who exposed their infants knew that their children
32 Epictetus, Discourses (101 C.E.), 2.4.5.33 Strabo, Geographica (no later than 23 C.E.), 7.5.7.34 UBS Greek reads: “oJ de; ajpokriqei;ß levgei aujtw'/, Kuvrie, a~feß aujth;n kai; tou'to to; e~toß, e&wß o&tou skavyw peri; aujth;n kai; bavlw kovpria” (kovpria being used here in the literal sense as “fertilizer”).35 Boswell, op. cit., 14.36 Justin Martyr, First Apology (150 C.E.), 27.
7
![Page 9: Children From the Dung Heap](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051820/552979374a79597c158b478f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Tice
would be enslaved.37 In the final analysis, it is unclear from which side – that of the
parents or of the slave-dealers – enslaving of exposed infants was initiated. It seems
altogether likely, given the above sources, that the places which came to be popular as
infant dump-sites were discovered by opportunistic slave-dealers after the fact.
The available data seems to indicate that children in first century Roman Egypt were
exposed for a variety of reasons, applying a variety of rationales. Though there are
certainly documents expressing the motivations of preservation of personal character in
the case of illegitimate childbirth and concern for the long-term well-being of the child in
cases of divorce or where the birth parents are ill-suited (financially or otherwise) to
properly raise the child, both fairly respectable, the haunting moniker of “children from
the dung heap” and the less than optimal fate of these children (most frequently slavery
or prostitution) cannot easily be reconciled against those stated motives. The fact that so
few contemporary voices from within that culture rose up against the practice38 and that a
formal adoption system which the Roman world found much more favorable39 took
nearly three centuries to replace expositio seems to be a strong indication of the
probability that if there was a sense that infant exposure was not advantageous for anyone
but the slave-dealer, it was deeply repressed. As infant exposure was the most benign
available option, the culture invented, probably subconsciously, a way to justify it: a
quasi-dehumanization of the victims.
37 Plinius Secundus, Epistles (111-113 C.E.), 10.65-6.38 For the most part, the earliest voices opposing expositio came from within the Church, i.e. Clement, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, et al. Stoic philosopher Gaius Musonius Rufus (F 15a-b) was among the very few pagan voices to rise against the practice in the first century. Others would follow in the 4th and 5th centuries. 39 Expositio was officially outlawed in 374 C.E. after the establishment of infant asylums (the precursor to orphanages).
8
![Page 10: Children From the Dung Heap](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051820/552979374a79597c158b478f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Tice
APPENDIX A: P. Oxy. XXXVII
9
![Page 11: Children From the Dung Heap](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051820/552979374a79597c158b478f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Tice
P. Oxy. XXXVII: Report of a Lawsuit (translation)
[COLUMN I]From the transcript of Ti[berius] Claud[ius] Pasion, strate[gus].[The] ninth [year] of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus GermanicusImperator, Pharmouthi III. In court,[P]esouris v. Saraeus. Aristocles, lawyer for
5 Pesouris: “Pesouris, in the seventh [year]of our sovereign Tiberius Claudius Caesar, picked up from a dungheapthe body of a male foundling named Herac[las].This [child] was placed in the care (lit. hands) of the defendant, beingthere for the (nourishment? nursemaiding?) of the son (foundling) of Pesouris.
10 For the first year, she received the wage.The previously agreed upon [amount] for the second year was set,and she also received it. But, as evidence of the things I say,there are written records through which she acknowledges these truths.The body was being starved [thus]
15 Pesouris took him away. After this, found the master, entered into our (his?) house, and the abandoned foundling, and carried off the body, and justified[it] on the grounds the body (foundling) was born free.*I have first the document (contract) of the nursemaid,
20 I have second [the receipt of] the wages (dispensed?).I demand that these things be admitted.” Saraeus:“I weaned my child, and thisfoundling placed in my care (hands). I received for this all of eight staters. After
25 this, the foundling died, the money concerning him [remaining]. Now they wish
[COLUMN II]to take my own child.” Theon:“We have the foundling’s documents.”The strategus: “Since from the looks, he appearsto be the child of Saraeus, if her written statement
5 and her husband’s [is made that] the foundling placed in her care by Pesourisdied, my judgment [is] in accordance with thejudgment of the lord praefect, givinghim the return of the silver to have [her] own
10 child [returned].
10
![Page 12: Children From the Dung Heap](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051820/552979374a79597c158b478f/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Tice
APPENDIX B: P.Oxy XXXVIII
P. Oxy. XXXVIII: Petition to the Praefect (translation)
To Genaeus Vergilius CapitonioFrom Tryphon, son of Dionysius of the city of Oxyrhynchus. Cyrus, son of Cyrus, under the careof my wife Saraeus, daughter of Apion, in the seventh [year]
5 of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus GermanicusImperator, by my authority, picked up froma dungheap a male foundling, the name of whom is Heraclas,that he might be nursed. The foundling died,and Cyrus attempted to carry off
10 into slavery my infant son Apion,as he ignored what became of the law of the strategus Pasion, and by whom my son Apion was restored to me following your rulingand the transcript entered by
15 Pasion. And because Cyrus, not wishing to abide with the judgmentbut in fact hinders the work of my hands,unto you, I come - the savior (guardian?) of my [ability to] have [my] rights.Good fortune.
11
![Page 13: Children From the Dung Heap](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051820/552979374a79597c158b478f/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Tice
APPENDIX C: P.Oxy. DCCXLIV
P. Oxy. DCCXLIV: Letter of Hilarion (translation)
Hilarion to Alis his sister, many greetingsand to my dear Berous and Apollinarion.Know that I am still even now in Alexandriaand do not worry if they come back __________;
5 I remain in Alexandria.I urge you and entreat you to care forthe child and if soon I receivea present, I will send it up to you. IfApollonarion (?) bears a child, if it is
10 male, pardon [it]; if it is female, throw it out.But Aphodisias “Do not forget me; how am I ableto forget you? I beg you therefore, do notworry.
12
![Page 14: Children From the Dung Heap](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051820/552979374a79597c158b478f/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Tice
Works Cited: Primary Sources
Clement of Alexandria. Paedagogus. Ca. 189-211 C.E.
C. Suetonius Tranquillus, Divus Augustus. Ca. 121 C.E.
Epictetus. Discourses. 101 C.E.
Gnomon of the Idios Logos.
Grenfell, Bernard P. and Arthur S. Hunt, transl. Oxyrhynchus Papyri vols. 1, 2, & 4.
London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1898. P. Oxy. XXXVII, XXXVIII, DCCXLIV.
Griechische Urkunden. Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen Museen zu Berlin.
Justin Martyr. First Apology. 150 C.E.
Lactantius. Institutiones Divinae. 3rd Century C.E.
Mommsen, Theodor and Paul Krueger, eds. Iustiniani Digestae, editio minor. Berlin,
1882.
Plinius Secundus. Epistles. Ca. 111-113 C.E.
Seneca the Elder, Controversiae. Michael Winterbottom, ed. Cambridge, MA: Loeb’s
Classical Library, 1974.
Strabo. Geographicus. No later than 23 C.E.
Tacitus. The Histories. Circa 98 C.E.
Tertullian. Ad Nationes.
13
![Page 15: Children From the Dung Heap](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051820/552979374a79597c158b478f/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Tice
Works Cited: Secondary Sources
Alston, Richard. The City in Roman and Byzantine Egypt. London: Routledge, 2002.
Balch, David L. Early Christian Families in Context: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue.
Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003.
Boswell, John Eastburn. “Expositio and Oblatio: The Abandonment of Children and the
Ancient and Medieval Family.” American Historical Review 89, no. 1. (Feb
1984): 10-33.
Brunt, P. A. Italian Manpower 225 B.C. – A.D. 14. Oxford, 1971.
Catholic Encyclopedia: “Roman Law,” <www.newadvent.org/cathen/09079a.htm>.
Perdrizet, Paul. “Copria.” 1921. Cited in Pomeroy, Sarah B. “Copronyms and the
Exposure of Infants in Egypt.” A. Arthur Schiller, Roger S. Bagnall, and William
Vernon Harris, eds. Studies in Roman Law in Memory of A. Arthur Schiller.
Brill, 1986.
Riddle, John M. Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance.
Boston: Harvard University Press, 1995.
14