Abstract
John Chrysostom and the transformation of the discourse of reproduction and birth in early Christianity
In late ancient Christian thought, we have an almost unanimous reaction against marriage, sexual intercourse and procreation. Although most Christian writers did not completely forbid marriage and sexual intercourse, which would be considered heretical (some groups such as the so-called “Encratites” did forbid it altogether), marriage occupies a second place to the state of virginity. This reaction against marriage and especially sex and reproduction is considered a major departure from earlier Roman views, which promoted, even rewarded, marriage and reproduction (Treggiari 1991; Hersch 2010). This has implications for how we would understand issues such as patriarchy, androcentrism, and reproductive capital in late ancient Christian thought. Of course, the majority of people continued in married life and had children – virginity and the monastic life were certainly not suitable for everyone, as many ancient authors also believed (Caner 2012:588–600). This study approaches reproduction and birth as discourses in early Christian thought. That is, applications of language and rhetoric that are deployed strategically (i.e. with power agendas) in a variety of ways, all of which have very real and practical consequences. Discourses do things; they shape our world, our society, our thinking and our bodies.
The discourse of reproduction and birth was not completely renounced in Christian thought, but rather transformed. This is in accordance with Brown’s (1971) characterization of late antiquity as a period of transformation rather than decline. The purpose of this article is to examine how the discourse of reproduction and birth is transformed in late ancient Christian thought, focusing specifically on John Chrysostom (ca. 349–407 AD). Chrysostom is undoubtedly a valuable source for late ancient social thought, and his works give us a glimpse of both social realities and social ideals. Chrysostom was initially a monk and then a priest in Syrian Antioch and later became Bishop of Constantinople. Early in his life, Chrysostom became known as a preacher and teacher of the Scriptures. He is one of the most prolific Greek Christian writers of his time and his corpus includes not only theological and moral treatises and letters, but many homiletic commentaries on several books of the Bible. (For Chrysostom’s biography, see Kelly 1998; Mayer and Allen 1999; Brändle 2004.)
The main questions of this study are the following: as the discourse of reproduction and birth continued in the early Christian framework of thought, with Chrysostom as a case study, how did it change from its conventional use and understanding, which focused mainly on the female body and femininity? What form did the new, transformed discourse of reproduction and birth take and why?
In the first instance, Chrysostom expands the concept of teknogonia. (To bear children, in Greek, see 1 Tim 2:15.) For Chrysostom, teknogonia actually means paidotrophia, i.e. the education of children. In this interpretive move, he takes a concept that is based in the biological sphere and extends it to the social sphere. It is then not birth, by default, that brings salvation, but educating children in Christian virtues. The discursive shift away from the conventional (female) field of reproduction (teknogonia) to the social and pedagogical terrain (paidotrophia) has significant implications for how we should understand late ancient Christian views on reproduction and birth. We can therefore become more aware of the pervasive (and embedded) nature of early Christian gender power dynamics and masculinity in these discourses and ideologies of reproduction and birth – concepts that may appear on the surface as “feminine”; however, may be grounded in masculine discourse. It is here, with this shift from teknogonia to paidotrophia, that we observe the beginning of the transformation of the discourse of birth and reproduction in Chrysostom’s thought.
Secondly, we witness the male body becoming the locus of ideal reproduction and birth. This is an unexpected and surprising development in Christian thought. I term this phenomenon androgenerativity, and it serves as the primary point of integration in the Christian transformation of reproductive and birth discourses. When I speak of androgenerativity, I refer to an ideal mode of reproduction where the masculine body serves as the primary trajectory and source.
Androgenerativity begins with the body of Adam as the primary and ideal place of reproduction from which Eve sprouts. Then the stories of the barren women of the Old Testament also function as examples of androgenerative reproduction. Although they were women, both their barrenness and their masculine virtue, according to Chrysostom, qualified them to be examples, even types, of ideal androgenerative reproduction. Therefore, we must keep in mind that it is the masculine body that is the locus of androgenerativity. It is not simply the male body – not all men, according to Chrysostom, were masculine. Women could also be masculine, for example, Sarah and the other barren women of the Old Testament. Their most important purpose was precisely to prepare believers for the conception and birth of Jesus by the Virgin Mary, another example of androgenerative reproduction. Finally, all believers can also participate in spiritual regeneration through the Holy Spirit. This form of spiritual reproduction and birth is also androgenerative.
There are thus three features of androgenerative reproduction and birth in Chrysostom’s thought:
- Androgenerative reproduction presupposes total psychic and bodily perfection.
- Androgenerative reproduction does not violate and change the body.
- Androgenerativity develops climactically and parallel to the Christian history of salvation.
This article therefore demonstrates that the discourse of reproduction and birth, in Chrysostom’s thought, was transformed by taking the form of androgenerativity. Masculinity was at its core, and both men and women could be reproductive agents or reproductive capital in this new framework. Most important is to recognize that ancient Christian sources such as those of Chrysostom associated ideal reproduction and birth with masculinity.
Keywords: androgenerativity; birth; Early Christianity; gender; John Chrysostom; masculinity; Patristics; reproduction
- Featured image: Photo of a Roman statue at the Ponte Sant’Angelo by Tamara Malaniy on Unsplash