A C T A I N S T I T U T I R O M A N I F I N L A N D I A E Vo l . 4 1
RELIGIOUS PARTICIPATION
IN ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL SOCIETIES
RITUALS, INTERACTION AND IDENTITY
editors
Sari Katajala-Peltomaa & Ville Vuolanto
ROMA 2013
Direttore degli Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae
Mika Kajava
Institutum Classicum, PL 4
FIN – 00014 Universitas Helsingiensis
Redazione del vol. 41
Sari Katajala-Peltomaa & Ville Vuolanto
Cover illustration
A procession of children bearing offerings to Diana.
Ostia, early third century CE. BAV (Sala delle Nozze Aldobrandini), inv. 79643.
Photograph: V. Vuolanto.
ISBN 978-88-7140-545-2
ISSN 0538-2270
© Institutum Romanum Finlandiae
Roma 2013
www.irfrome.org
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Finito di stampare nel mese di dicembre 2013
Male Virgins in Latin Inscriptions from Rome
Christian Laes
You will find that I have mimicked your maidenhood,
if there is also a maidenhood for men
(Achilles Tatius 5. 20. 5; transl. K. Harper)
In pagan Antiquity, virginity was an almost exclusively female matter. For a man, it would have been pre-
posterous, not to say ridiculous, to take pride in his being a virgin. There was not even a Greek or Latin word
to denote a male virgin. With the advent of Christianity, things changed. The transformation was profound:
male maidenhood was not only denoted by a proper word (virginius), but also became a marker, mostly in
epitaphs, for belonging to the new religion. The present chapter will deal with this remarkable transforma-
tion, which has received relatively little scholarly attention.1
Indeed, non-Christian texts hardly ever confront us with men praising themselves or being praised
for their being a virgin. The Latin word for virgin, virgo, only existed as a female noun, as did the Greek
parthenos. There was not even the expectation that young men, mostly in their mid-twenties, should enter
their first marriage as a virgin, quite the contrary. Without exaggeration, one could say that the early church
had monopolised the issue of virginity. While for obvious reasons the ecclesiastical writers mostly focused
on women, they introduced the issue of male virginity and chastity as well. Almost simultaneously, a whole
range of Christian funerary inscriptions for male virgins emerges, resorting to specific vocabulary and words
which are not paralleled in ancient literary sources. Though these Christian inscriptions have been collected,
they have hardly ever been studied systematically. Ultimately, the result of the admittedly somewhat unusual
marriage between history of gender/sexuality on the one hand and epigraphy/serial evidence on the other
yields new results in the study of early Christianity. It enables one to compare and confront the theoretical
discourse of the well-to-do with the way it was received in documents produced by the lower classes. We get
to know how the virginity discourse impacted on ordinary people’s self-representation and possibly on their
every day lives, or, in other words, the way the new religion influenced socialisation in the city of Rome.
* I am most grateful to Kyle Harper (University of Oklahoma), who kindly sent me the manuscript of his forthcoming From
Shame to Sin. The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity, Cambridge (MA) and London 2013.
1 For the non-Christian dossier, see H. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome, Philadelphia 1960, 130 (on Jewish virginii); M. Humbert,
Le remariage à Rome. Etude d’histoire juridique et sociale, Milan 1972, 66; S. Treggiari, Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from
the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian, Oxford 1991, 234-5; J. Evans Grubbs, Law and Family in Late Antiquity. The Emperor
Constantine’s Marriage Legislation, Oxford 1995, 70 and 335; G. Nathan, The Family in Late Antiquity. The Rise of Christianity
and the Endurance of Tradition, London and New York 2000, 103. On the Christian material, see H. Leclercq, ‘Mariage’, DACL
10:2 (1932), 1843-982, esp. 1963-4; A. Ferrua, ‘Questioni di epigrafia eretica Romana’, RAC 21 (1944-45), 165-221, esp. 195-8;
H. Nordberg, ‘B. Les mots virgo et parthenos dans les tituli chrétiens de Rome’, in H. Zilliacus (ed.), Sylloge inscriptionum chris-
tianarum veterum musei Vaticani, Helsinki 1963, 203-9; C. Vogel, ‘L’Âge des époux chrétiens au moment de contracter mariage
d’après les inscriptions paléochrétiens’, Revue de droit canonique 16 (1966), 355-66, esp. 359; Humbert, cit., 346-7; J. Janssens,
Vita e morte del cristiano negli epitaffi di Roma anteriori al sec. VII, Rome 1981, 107-12; 198-210; K. C. Kelly, Performing Virgin-
ity and Testing Chastity in the Middle Ages, London and New York 2000, 3-5.
106 CHRISTIAN LAES
Male virginity in the Roman non-Christian context
Methodologically sound research on Roman ages of marriage has been carried out since the 1960s. Legal
texts set out minimum ages of twelve for girls and fourteen/fifteen for boys, but these are by their nature nor-
mative and not necessarily reflections of every day reality. Inscriptions offer an enormous collection of data,
which are somewhat distorted by local commemorative patterns or the so-called epigraphic habit, causing
people, for instance, to mention the age of death and the duration of marriage in the cases of people who died
young or for those whose marriages had lasted an extraordinarily long time, in other words, to show a prefer-
ence for the exceptional rather than the common. Papyrological data from Egyptian census lists might also
be helpful, albeit only for the province of Egypt. Taking into account these pieces of evidence together with
indications from comparative research, it seems that Roman society was characterised by a Mediterranean
pattern of early marriage, with women marrying in their late teens or early twenties and men between the
ages of twenty-five and thirty, possibly a bit younger for aristocratic young men. Recently, Walter Scheidel
has convincingly argued that this is a general hypothesis one can advance with some certainty, while other
claims should be made with the utmost caution, and with due consideration of the confounding variables
revealed by comparative evidence from later periods. Even the suggestion that girls married in their late
teens rather than their early to mid-teens seems to make more sense from a present-day point of view, but
is otherwise hard to substantiate.2
Both in the Greek and the Roman tradition, sexual initiation and the loss of virginity were crucial com-
ponents of the first wedding night for the girls3. We cannot know whether a girl from the middle class marrying
in her late teens had any sexual experience before marriage. Most probably, it was expected that she had not.
Virginity was considered important, although this claim of virginity was not yet sanctioned by religion. For
high class Roman girls, sexual chastity before marriage was considered a must. The requirement of sexual
purity was such that unmarried girls were not even allowed to attend banquets at which obscene jokes were
made.4 Ancient lexicographers mention the expression ‘married words’ (nupta verba): words which only mar-
ried women were allowed to hear, women who had been initiated into the secrets of sexuality through the ex-
perience of the bridal bed.5 The sudden confrontation with sexuality and the machismo of the first bridal night
must often have marked a drastic change in the lives of aristocratic girls who had been commemoring their
childhood just a day before. Marriage was in fact their rite de passage into adulthood.6
Not a single pagan text expresses the expectation that a young man should preferably be a virgin when
he entered marriage. Quite the contrary. Roman youngsters had been permitted to experiment with sex from
2 The study by W. Scheidel, ‘Roman Funerary Commemoration and the Age of First Marriage’, in CPh 102 (2007), 389-402,
contains all the necessary references to earlier literature. A.A. Lelis – W.A. Percy – B.C. Verstraete, The Age of Marriage in An-
cient Rome, Lewiston etc. 2003 has argued for an earlier age of marriage, both for boys and girls, in the aristocratic upper class. See
Scheidel, cit., 401-2 on this study.
3 For the Greek tradition, see G. Sissa, Greek Virginity, Cambridge 1990; L. Viitaniemi, ‘PARTHENIA – Remarks on Virginity
and its Meanings in the Religious Context of Ancient Greece’, in L. Larsson Lovén – A. Strömberg (eds), Aspects of Women in
Antiquity. Proceedings of the First Nordic Symposium on Women’s Lives in Antiquity, Jonsered 1998, 44-57. On marriage and sexual
initiation in the papyri, see T. J. Triantaphyllopoulos, ‘Virginité et défloration masculines’, in B.G. Mandilaras (ed.), Proceedings
of the XVIIIth International Congress of Papyrology, vol. 2, Athens 1988, 327-33. For an excellent overview of female virginity in
the Roman world, see L. Caldwell, Scripted Lives. Girls’ Coming of Age in the Early Roman Empire, Cambridge (forthcoming).
4 Varro, Men. 9 (ed. Cebè) = 11 (ed. Bücheler-Heraeus).
5 The expression is found with Fest. 174 (ed. Lindsay). See M. Lentano, “Noscere amoris iter”: l’iniziazione alla vita sessuale
nella cultura romana’, Euphrosyne 24 (1996), 271-82.
6 It is a pity that we never hear the voices of these girls in the source material. For a brilliant evocation of a fictitious Roman
wedding ceremony, see K. Hopkins, A World Full of Gods: Pagans, Jews and Christians in the Roman Empire, London 1999, 37.
Male Virgins in Latin Inscriptions from Rome 107
their coming of age onwards. For this they had young male or female slaves at their disposal, and young
men were encouraged to visit a brothel.7 If we are to believe Philo of Alexandria, among the gentiles young
men after their fourteenth year were engaged in completely shameless sexual acts with whores and all sorts
of women who make a profit with their body.8 After he became a husband, the Roman man still enjoyed
a certain liberty in sexual matters. Roman marriage was marked by a double moral standard: other stand-
ards applied to men than to women, who were expected to guard their chastity. Despite the admonitions of
moralists (and later on Christian authors) this remained the moral standard till late Antiquity. In the Roman
concept of marriage, the sexual fidelity of the male partner was not considered an indispensable condition
for a happy and harmonious marital life.9 Admittedly the insistence on contracting a marriage in order to
restrain youthful lust was a popular topos with moralists and ancient writers of comedy. But this emphasis
needs to be understood in the context of the new responsibilities marriage brought: care for the new house,
wife and children, and family patrimony.10 Contrary to canonical law, sexual performance was not one of
the basic conditions for the marriage being legally valid. In Ulpian’s words, it was not sleeping together but
consent that certified a marriage.11
The early church on marriage and virginity
The early church created a monopoly on virginity. To Christian authors, marriage was outshone by vir-
ginity and widowhood.12 Admittedly, Christianity did not ban sexuality or the institution of marriage.
Though Paul prided himself in his chastity, he emphasised that others had received other endowments
by the Holy Spirit. In the end, it was better to marry than to burn: marriage served as a tool for the curb-
ing of lust and passion.13 While Tertullian must have shocked many of his compeers by his fierce attacks
on extra-marital sex, marriages with non-Christians and even procreation, he also extols true Christian
marriage, where man and wife live together in perfect concordia, as brother and sister, perfect servants
7 On brothels and sexual outlets, see e.g. Pseudo-Acro, Scholia in Horatium serm. 1. 2. 31-32; Iuv. 5. 117; Pers. 5. 30-36. On
slaves, see Sen. benef. 1. 9. 4. See C. Laes – J. Strubbe, Jeugd in het Romeinse rijk. Jonge jaren, wilde haren?, Leuven 2008, 59;
126-7; C. Williams, Roman Homosexuality. Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity, New York and Oxford 1999, 38-47
(brothels); 30-8 (slaves).
8 Philo, Ios. 43. Philo is of course eager to stress the difference with Jewish practice.
9 Treggiari, cit. n. 1, 299-309; G. Nathan, cit. n. 1, 179-80. Remarkable examples in Suet. Aug. 69 (letter by the married Antony);
Val. Max. 6. 7. 1 (Scipio’s wife values her husband’s concubine); Plut. praec. coni. 140b.
10 Laes – Strubbe, cit. n. 7, 180-1 for marriage as the end of youth. Typical texts include Ter. Andr. 151-3; 443-6; 560-2, as well
as Cic. fam. 8. 13. 1; Statius, silv. 1. 2. 26-29; Ps.-Plut. lib. educ. 13.
11 Dig. 50. 17. 30 (Ulpian).
12 Scholarly literature on the subject of Christian marriage, asceticism and sexuality is vast. I mention only: P. Brown, Body and
Society. Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity, New York 1988; E. Clark, ‘“Adam’s Only Companion”:
Augustine and the Early Christian Debate on Marriage’, in R. R. Edwards, S. Spector (eds), The Olde Daunce: Love, Friendship
and Marriage in the Medieval World, New York 1991, 15-31; 240-54; E. Clark, ‘Antifamilial Tendencies in Ancient Christianity’,
JHSex 5 (1995), 356-80; K. Cooper, The Virgin and the Bride: Idealized Womanhood in Late Antiquity, Cambridge (MA) 1996; K.
Cooper, The Fall of the Roman Household, Cambridge 2007; K. Cooper – C. Leyser, ‘The Gender of Grace: Impotence, Servitude,
and Manliness in the Fifth-Century West’, Gender and History 12:3 (2000), 536-51; S. Elm, Virgins of God. The Making of Asceti-
cism in Late Antiquity, Oxford 1994; D. G. Hunter, Marriage, Celibacy, and Heresy in Ancient Christianity: the Jovinianist Contro-
versy, Oxford 2007; G. Nathan, cit. n. 1; C. Osiek, ‘The Family in Early Christianity: “Family Values” Revisited’, Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 58 (1996), 1-24; T. M. Shaw, ‘Sex and Sexual Renunciation’, in P. F. Esler (ed.), The Early Christian World, London,
New York 2000, vol. 1, 401-21; V. Vuolanto, Family and Asceticism. Continuity Strategies in the Late Roman World (Unpublished
Ph.D. thesis), University of Tampere 2008. For anthologies of relevant texts with commentary, see E. Eyben – C. Laes – T. Van
Houdt, Amor-Roma. Liefde en erotiek in Rome, Leuven 2003, 130-4; 165-74; 198-203; 238-53 and V. L. Wimbush, Ascetic Behavior
in Graeco-Roman Antiquity. A Sourcebook, Minneapolis 1990.
13 1 Cor. 7: 7-9.
108 CHRISTIAN LAES
of the Lord, praying together and practicing charity together.14 To Augustine the state of the married was
inferior to celibacy or widowhood, but he nevertheless considered the bond between men and women as
testimony to the most natural affinity in human society. Admittedly, after the Fall of Man, sexual lust had
changed the character of marriage, but this did not mean that the institution of marriage itself should be
considered morally wrong.15 A passionate urge to promote virginity and widowhood, combined with a
profound aversion to sex, led other patristic writers, such as Jerome or John Chrysostom, to make unre-
lenting tirades against marriage and sexuality, which must have struck their audience’s ears as much as
they strike the ears of modern readers. In their attacks on marriage, they mostly focus on the female side
of it: the uncertain period of betrothal, with parents changing their minds over possible candidates for
marriage16, the nasty character of the bridegroom, the dangers of pregnancy, the problem of fertility, the
burden of raising children, ubiquitous mortality, and marital violence.17 However, ‘male problems’ are
not forgotten: deception after marrying a most beautiful woman or a very ugly one, or problems with the
dowry.18 Ascetic and monastic movements expanded their criticism of both sexuality and marriage, as
their followers opted for a self-inflicted destruction of their social status. However, it was also emphasised
that male ascetics were potent, and indeed had abundant spiritual progeny.19 Being without children had
nothing to do with lack of manliness or authority.20 As such, the ascetics had become masters of the power
of fertility by negating their own sexuality.21
To the Christian patristic writers, virginity (virginitas) and chastity (castitas) were always close-
ly intertwined. When using these terms, they may be referring to never having experienced coitus, or
to a commitment to religious celibacy, or to sexual faithfulness in a monogamous marriage.22 It was
about holiness in body and spirit. Virginity was more than a physical technicality.23 Hence, the patristic
writers were usually dismissive of virginity tests as they were carried out by midwives. Such exami-
nations did not prove anything: a virgo intacta might in fact not be a virgo integra in her spirit (like,
for instance, the holy women who claimed to live together with a man in what they called a spiritual
or a brother/sister marriage24). In about 380, Bishop Ambrose reported on the case of the consecrated
Veronese virgin Indicia, who was accused of impurity on the basis of mere rumours. At this, Syagrius
14 Tert. uxor. 2. 9. 6-9. See also Ioh. Chrys. in epist. I ad Cor. 26. 8 on harmony and mutual understanding in Christian marriage.
15 Aug. virg. 45 (inferior to celibacy); bon. coniug. 1. 3 (natural affinity); civ. 13. 23; gen. ad litt. 3 (marriage and sexual lust).
16 In all probability, there was also a considerable age gap between men and women in Christian marriage, causing women in their
late teens to be on average eight years younger than their first husbands. See M. M. Aubin, ‘More apparent than Real? Questioning
the Difference in Marital Age between Christian and Non-Christian Women of Rome During the Third and Fourth Century’, AHB
14:1 (2000), 1-13.
17 J. A. Schroeder, ‘John Chrysostom’s Critique of Spousal Violence’, JECS 12 (2004), 103-16.
18 Hier. epist. 22, 22; 54, 4 & 15; Ioh. Chrys. virg. 57 are telling texts on the disadvantages of marriage.
19 E.g. Eus. Caes. Dem. ev. 1. 9; Greg. Nyss. virg. 19; Aug. bon. coniug. 9 and 17; nupt. et concup. 1. 13; epist. 243. 9.
20 Ioh. Chrys. adv. oppugn. vit. mon. 3. 16; Ambr. fid. 4. 8. 81-82.
21 Vuolanto, cit. n. 12, 84-90.
22 Kelly, cit. n. 1, 3-5.
23 1 Cor. 7: 34. In a sense, the concept of the hymen as a token of virginity was a creation of the Arabic medical tradition,
which was adopted in the Latin West in the early Middle Ages. See Kelly, cit. n. 1, 25-6. Neither Aristotle nor Galen mention
the virginal membrane when dealing with female anatomy. Soranus explicitly denies the existence of a hymen: Sor. Gyn. 1,
16-17. See G. Sissa, ‘Une virginité sans hymen. Le corps feminin en Grèce ancienne’, Annales ESC 39 (1984), 1119-39. For a
different opinion on this matter, see L. Dean-Jones, Women’s Bodies in Classical Greek Science, Oxford and New York 1994,
50-55.
24 On this type of marriage, see particularly B. Leyerle, Theatrical Shows and Ascetic Lives: John Chrysostom’s Attack on Spir-
itual Marriage, Berkeley – Los Angeles 2001; A. P. Alwis, Celibate Marriages in Late Antique and Byzantine Hagiography: The
Lives of Saints Julian and Basilissa, Andronikos and Athanasia, and Galaktion and Episteme, London 2011.
Male Virgins in Latin Inscriptions from Rome 109
of Verona had her virginity checked by a midwife. The Bishop of Milan strongly disapproved of this
undignified and useless corporal inspection: instead he resorted to trustworthy witnesses to certify the
virgin’s dignity.25
Obviously there were no means to verify the virginity of males.26 Based on classical humoral theories,
discussions on the matter were limited to the possible effects of abstinence or sexual indulgence, as well as
on the typically male ability to restrain his sexual activity, whereas women by their humoral constitution and
predilection were more inclined to intercourse.27
Kathleen Kelly has called the consecrated male virgin ‘a new ontological category with which Rome
had little previous experience’.28 In the year 211, Tertullian, for the first time in Latin literature, referred to ‘so
many men-virgins (viri autem tot virgines)’ who contrary to female virgins were not veiled. For this reason,
female virgins ought not to be honored for wearing this obvious sign of virginity.29 Later on, Jerome also ex-
plicitly uses the word virgin as a masculine noun.30 When these Christian authors did this, they ran counter to
pagan usage.31 Now we have to turn our attention to Latin epigraphy. Apparently, the specific Christian usage
of the term virgo was frequently adopted for everyday usage in epitaphs, albeit in a peculiar way.
The Inscriptions of Rome32
Virgo as masculine and feminine noun
As in pagan Latin literature, in inscriptions virgo is nearly always used as a feminine noun, denoting a young
girl not yet married. Girls were called virgines from about the age of seven. This was legally considered the
minimum age for betrothal; from this age marriageableness could be displayed by the use of this word.33 The
link with the meaning of ‘not being married’ appears very explicitly in an inscription in which a woman is
said to have lived twelve years as a virgo, and a further thirty years in marriage.
25 The case is described in Ambr. epist. 5. See particularly epist. 5. 6: ‘… cum praesertim nihil sanctius in virgine sit quam vere-
cundia? Non enim sacra virgo ut corpore tantummodo integra sit quaeritur, et non ita in omnibus eius inoffensus maneat pudor.
Virgo Domini suis est nixa fulcris ad sui probationem, nec alienis dotibus eget ut se virginem probet’.
26 In their attempts to correlate male and female puberty, Hippocratic doctors mentioned the fact that adolescent boys might also
bleed at first intercourse: Hippocr. epist. 6. 3. 14 (5. 300. 1-2 ed. Littré). See Dean-Jones, cit. n. 23, 53 on this passage. Strangely
enough, in a story from the Apophthegmata Patrum (AP N 63) it is stated that the people who put the habit on a deceased monk’s
body could actually see that he had been a virgin!
27 Kelly, cit. n. 1, 94-101.
28 Kelly, cit. n. 1, 91.
29 Tert. virg. vel. 10. See also virg. vel. 8: ‘qui inter viros virgo est’.
30 Hier. adv. Iovin. 1. 4: ‘Vos, quaeso, utriusque sexus virgines et continentes’. See also Hier. epist. 22. 21: ‘Virgo Elias, Eliscus
virgo, virgines multi filii Prophetarum’.
31 J. Cadden, Meanings of Sex Difference in the Middle Ages: Medicine, Science, and Culture, Cambridge 1993, 260-1 on the use
of virgo as a masculine noun by patristic writers.
32 For obvious reasons, I have chosen the inscriptions from the city of Rome. This vast collection is firmly documented in the
monumental Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum VI (CIL) for the non-Christian material, and the ten volume series Inscriptiones
Christianae Urbis Romae (ICUR) for the Christian counterparts. As such, the number of inscriptions to be compared is more than
sufficient, and the results are not skewed by local fashions in different places or cities.
33 P. Watson, ‘Puella and Virgo’, Glotta 61 (1983), 119-43, esp. 137 n. 141 for epigraphical evidence. See the list in C. Laes,
‘Inscriptions from Rome and the History of Childhood’, in M. Harlow – R. Laurence (eds), Age and Ageing in the Roman Empire,
Portsmouth 2007, 36: CIL VI 10703 (6 years); CIL VI 17144 (9 years); CIL VI 7898 (10 years); CIL VI 34130 (11 years; virgun-
cula); CIL VI 23823 and 28756 (12 years); CIL VI 17224 and 35887 (13 years); CLE 55 = CIL I 1009; CIL VI 5817, 20167, 20653,
20892, 22704 and 28280 (14 years). ‘Older’ virgines above age fourteen: CIL VI 8027 (15 years); CIL VI 12055 (18 years); CIL
VI 34728 = ICUR 27381 = 27397 (22 years). Though included in CIL, this last inscription is a Christian one, so that the eldest non-
Christian female virgo in the Roman inscriptions was aged eighteen.
110 CHRISTIAN LAES
To the gods of the underworld. Dedicated to the memory of beloved Aelia Crescentina. She lived
twelve years as a virgin and thirty years and six months with her husband. Aufidius Secundianus made
this for his wife.34
The same thought is expressed by using the turn of phrase a virginitate.35 In one inscription, the pu-
rity and chastity of fourteen-year old Stephanis is emphasised, which has lead scholars to believe that this
epitaph at least bears traces of Christian influence.36
The use of virgo as a masculine noun is very rare in pagan inscriptions. The Oxford Latin Dictionary
offers one example for Lyon, in which a six-year old daughter and a nineteen-year old son (the boy was a
carpenter) who died within the space of only thirty days, were commemorated by their stepfather, mother,
and brothers.37 Searching through the databases of CIL VI, we only encounter one inscription in which a
man is presumably named virgo. The 42-year old imperial freedman Titus Aelius Titianus, who had been in
charge of the imperial library, died and was buried by his wife of twelve years, Flavia Ampelis, who even re-
ceived the permission of the emperor to remove his bones afterwards. In all likelihood, Aelius Titianus died
in Carnuntum when he was with the Emperor Marcus Aurelius on his expedition against the Marcomanni
from 171 to 173 CE.38
Virginius in Pagan Inscriptions from Rome
Like its feminine counterpart virginia, the masculine noun virginius is only attested in inscriptions. Since
the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae has not reached the letter v yet, the Forcellini lexicon still offers the best
and most elaborate lemma. There it is stated that virginia refers to a woman who had entered marriage as
a virgin. Consequently, she was given this name by her husband. By analogy, virginius would have been
34 CIL VI 10867 = CIL VI 12829: ‘D(is) M(anibus) / memoriae / Ael(iae) Crescentinae / compari / quae vixit annis / virgo XII cum
mari/to XXX et menses VI / Aufidius Secundianus / uxori fecit’.
35 CIL VI 7732: ‘Naevia C(ai) f(ilia) Pontis / vixit annis XIIX mens(ibus) X / dieb(us) IIII unum ab virgini/tate L(uci) Aemili Regilli
matrimo/nium experta hunc titulum / pater infelicissimus filiae / opt<i=U>mae fecit’; CIL VI 9810: ‘Dis Manibus / M(arci) Iuni
Pudentis / pistori(s) magnario pepsiano / Claudia Earine / coniugi karissimo et sibi fecit / cum quo vixit a virginitate annis XXXV
/ sine ullo dolore nisi diem mortis eius et / libertis libertarbus posterisque eorum’ (presumably Christian, see Diehl 7463); CIL VI
11939: ‘D(is) M(anibus) / Antistiae Vict(o)riae con/iugi dulcissimae et be/ne merenti quae vixit an/nis XVII mens(ibus) n(umero) II
dieb(us) XXVII / quae post virginitate / sua vix(i)t cum marito / suo mens(ibus) XI dieb(us) XXVII / Egnatius Eutychianus / maritus
<f=E>ecit uxori ra/rissimae’; CIL VI 22657: ‘Dis M[a]nibus / M(arci) Munati Feli[cia]ni qui vix(it) / ann(is) LXVI men(sibus)
[---] dieb(us) IIII / Munatia Aph[rodi]te uxor / coniugi car[is]simo quae / vixit cum eo [a] virginitate / sine ulla macula ann(os)
XXXIV et / M(arcus) Munatius Felicianus filius / patri piissimo [e]t b(ene) m(erenti) fecerunt’. Possibly, the same was expressed in
a Christian inscription, the very fragmented character of which leaves us with many difficulties of interpretation: ICUR 13607 h:
‘[---] secu[---] / [---] dece et o[cto ---] / [---]t et ad lucem [---] / [--- dulcis]simo filio [---] / [--- pe]r virginitat[em ---] / [---] XXI
dep(ositus) VIII ka[lendas ---].’
36 CIL VI 5817: ‘D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) / Stephanis vir/go intaminata / lumen quod ace/pi reddidi pa/tre meum Ste/phanum
secuta / hoc fatum voluit / vix(it) ann(os) XIIII’. See B. Von Hesberg Tonn, Coniunx carissima. Untersuchungen zum Normcharakter
im Erscheinungsbild der römischen Frau (PhD thesis), Stuttgart 1983, 152. For a similar case of virgo intaminata, see CIL VI 5817
= CLE 1532.
37 The deceased son is called virgo, here ‘applied to a man without sexual experience’, as OLD s.v. 2 a puts it. CIL XIII 2036:
‘D(is) M(anibus) / et / memoriae aeternae / Valeriae Leucadiae infantis / dulcissimae quae vixit annis / VI d(iebus) XXX et / Virei
Vitalis iuvenis incompa/rabilis ingeni artis fabricae / Ferrariae fratris eiusdem Leu/cadiae quorum mortem soli / XXX dies inter-
fuerunt corpo/rato inter fabros tign(arios) Lugud(uni) / qui vixit ann(os) XVIIII m(enses) X d(ies) VI[I]II / cuius aetas talis fuit ut
virgo / defunctus sit cuiusque sapien/tia omnibus amicis et parenti[b(us)] / admirabilis fuit huius de aeta[te] mors inique iudicavit. /
Val(erius) Maximus Vitricus qui eum / sibi filium adoptaverat et art[e] / educaverat in quo spem aeta/tis suae conlocaverat et Iu/lia
Secundina mater infeli/cissima qui sibi ab eis id fieri spe/raverant et / Vireii Marinianus et Secundi/nianus et Val(erius) Secundinus
fra/tres p(onendum) c(uraverunt) et sibi vivi sub asc(ia) dedic(averunt)’.
38 CIL VI 8878: ‘D(is) M(anibus) / T(ito) Aelio Aug(usti) lib(erto) Titiano prox(imo) / a libr(is) sacerdotal(ibus) def(uncto)
Carnunt(o) / ann(orum) XXXXII m(ensium) III d(ierum) XIX marit(o) virgin(i) / dulciss(imo) et incomparabili bene/que merito
quem funeravit / Fl(avia) Ampelis coniux carissima / et reliquias eius permissu Imp(eratoris) / ipsa pertulit consecravitque / cum
q(uo) v(ixit) a(nnos) XII m(enses) III d(ies) XXI sine ulla / querella’.
Male Virgins in Latin Inscriptions from Rome 111
the name a wife attributed to her husband, indicating that she had married him when she was a virgin.39
Not surprisingly, Forcellini offers no examples of ancient definitions, only quotations from inscriptions
in which the terms are used, but obviously never defined. In other words: we just have to take Forcellini
at his word, and it might be worth taking a fresh look at the serial evidence. Indeed, some questions im-
mediately come to mind. Could the term virginius also mean that the husband entered marriage for the
first time?40 Could it be the male counterpart of univira? Are there inscriptions for virginii who were not
married? Were they mostly young persons? Do couples in which the man is named as a virginius mention
having children?
There are four other examples of men being associated with virginity in CIL VI, by the term virgi-
nius. As I will point out later, this is a very small number compared with the vast occurrence in Christian
41
inscriptions.42 Moreover, one of these four CIL VI inscriptions for virginii is actually a Christian epitaph.43
Another is almost certainly non-Christian in inspiration. Aurelius Mucianus was a discharged soldier of the
pretorian guard.44 In another inscription, a husband honours his deceased wife and a certain Publius Aelius
Filargurus, who appears to have been her former husband, and who is depicted as a virginius. Though this
is not explicitly stated, in all probability Filargurus had already died. This would suggest that virginius rep-
resented the male ideal of marital fidelity, analogous to univira for wives.45 => Finally, four commemorated
persons, two men and two women, most of them freed persons, are called virginia.46
Male virgins in Christian inscriptions – age and unmarriedness
The ages at death of twenty male virgins are known. Seven of them are called virgo (see Table 1). About
half of them were thirty years old or younger, so that we may safely say that they were quite young. Nine
of the twenty-two male virgins were probably not married, since no wives are mentioned. Remarkably
enough, these unmarried male virgins are nearly always labelled as virgo instead of virginius.47 In these
cases we may suspect that the original meaning for virgo was ‘not yet married’, as it was used in pagan
39 E. Forcellini, Totius Latinitatis Lexicon, Padova 1771, 670-1 s. v. virginia: ‘virginiam appellabat maritus uxorem suam, quam
virginem duxerat; eadem ratione virginium uxor maritum suum dicebat, cui virgo ipsa nupsisset’; 671 s. v. virginius: ‘virginium
appellabat uxor maritum suum cui ipsa virgo nupsisset.’ Note that for instance C. T. Lewis – C. Short, A Latin Dictionary, Oxford
1879 do not even include the words virginia and virginius.
40 While the definition given by Forcellini does not exclude the possibility that a man might have had relationships with women
or other marriages before entering the marriage in which he was called virginius, others have suggested that it also meant that it was
the husband’s first marriage: C. M. Kaufmann, Handbuch der altchristlichen Epigraphik, Freiburg 1917, 194; Nordberg, cit. n. 1,
209. Prominent Vatican scholars such as Ferrua have repeatedly opted for the former suggestion: Janssens, cit. n. 1, 108.
41 Note that in CIL VI 8878 marit(o) virgin(i) could also be supplied as marit(o) virgin(io).
42 Humbert, cit. n. 1, 66 also points to the rare occurrence of the term outside Rome. He lists CIL III 2739; 2868; 7507; 7553;
7694; 10577; 14910; CIL XIII 2189; CIL XIV 2841. Note that seven of these nine cases are from either Pannonia or Moesia.
43 CIL VI 37207 = ICUR 20738: ‘D(is) M(anibus) / Val(erius) Ursianus cives Aquileie(n)sis probitus an(nos) XVIII / in legione
X Gemina ubi mil(itavit) an(nos) V in pr(a)etoria an(nos) IIII / decessit an(no) plus minus XXVIII Iusta coniux bene (me)renti /
virginio suo <f=E>ecit Iusta / mil(ites) cohor(tis) IIII pr(a)et(oriae)’.
44 CIL VI 2604: ‘D(is) M(anibus) / Aurelius Mucianus missici/us c(o)h(o)r(tis) VI pr(a)et(oriae) qui vixit ann(os) / XXXVIIII
me(n)s(es) VII dies VIIII (h)ora(s) VIIII / fecit Aelia Lucia co(n)iugi virginio / suo bene merenti fecit.’
45 CIL VI 19253: ‘D(is) M(anibus) / [---]nniae Helvidiae co(n)iugi sa[nctissi]mae / et incomparabili fec[it] / P(ublius) Arrenius
Gemellinus de se b(ene) m(ere)nt(i) / con(!) qua vixit annis XI et / P(ublio) Aelio Filarguro marito virginio / {a}eius co[n(!) quo]
vixit annis XXI.’ For this interpretation of virginius, see Humbert, cit. n. 1, 66 and Evans Grubbs, cit. n. 1, 335.
46 CIL VI 11731: ‘D(is) M(anibus) / Annio Hilaro et / Flavio Romulo et / Annia[r(um)] Felic(u)l(a)e Sote/ris quorum corpora /
virginia hic condita / sunt ad bene quiescendum’. For a Christian example, see ICUR 20809: ‘virginii in pace’ (about a man of un-
known age and a woman named Iusta who died at age p(lus) m(inus) LXIIII).
47 The only two exceptions are ICUR 6497: ‘Acomio [virgini]o ben[emerenti qui vixi]t ann[is] / XX mens[ibus] VI diebus [---
dormi]enti i[n] p(ace) / d(ie) V k(a)l(endas) maias Se[vero et] Ru[fino vv(iris) cc(larissimis) cons(ulibu)s]’; ICUR 18458: ‘Asellus
qui et Martianus v(ixit) a(nnos) n(umero) XVIII / m(enses) VII / d(ies) XII / investis in pacae / Verissimus pater filio karissimo’.
112 CHRISTIAN LAES
inscriptions for girls.48 The age range of the deceased youngsters, seventeen, eighteen, and twenty-three,
perfectly match the suggestion of a parallel with the feminine virgo: only Berecundus, thirty years old and
commemorated by his mother, Spes, stands out as an exception.49 If the turn of phrase vernis venustus is
to be understood as ‘(most) handsome among the house-born slaves’, one inscription for a male virgin
is to be situated in the context of slaves and masters, though Vernis may also be interpreted as a cogno-
men.50
Two epitaphs may certainly be placed in the context of a religious community. In the cemetery of
Petrus and Marcellinus, a presbyter, together with fathers and brothers, commemorated the 38-year-old
lector Eugamius. The indication of his profession, as well as his age and the mention of patres and fratres
strongly indicate that Eugamius lead a consecrated life somehow bound by religious vows.51 A religious
community is certainly a possibility in a fragmented inscription for a scriptor, who had recently been bap-
tised and who was surrounded by fellow-students.52 Unfortunately, these are the only two instances which
point to the possibility of virgo as a consecrated life. Another two inscriptions for male virgins offer neither
dedicators nor context, so that it would be rash to posit this thesis in these cases.53 The paucity of evidence
is in strong contrast to the ample epigraphic evidence of female virgins known as virgines consecratae.54
However, one might still hold to the thesis of virginii as consecrated males, if one could find a considerable
number of inscriptions for unmarried male virgins whose age is not indicated. In fact, we have only three
possible examples.55 In the end one must admit that married male virgins outnumber unmarried male virgins
(eleven at the very most) by a factor of ten.
48 See n. 33. Also Christian inscriptions use virgo in this sense for girls, as ICUR 4251: ‘U]rse innocintissime castisimes / [f]emine
que reliquid miseros <m>aritu / m et patrem vixit {X} virgo ann(os) XVIII et m(enses) II dies [---] / et cum maritum ann(os) III mese
unum di<e>s XV / deposita III idus fe<b>(ruarias) quesquet in pace’; ICUR 11214: ‘quae mecum a virginitate s[ua vixit] / ann(is)
VIIII mens(ibus) IIII dieb(us) XVI’’. For a list of Christian female virgines, unmarried girls mostly commemorated by their parents,
see Janssens, cit. n. 1, 200-1.
49 ICUR 25005: ‘[A]urel(io) Petro fil[io] / dulcissimo qui v[ixit an]n(os) XVII / mens(es) VII virgo Aur(elius) M[ari]nus et /
Ael(ia) Donata parentes Pelagiorum’. ICUR 12459 (= I 3935): ‘Felici filio bene merenti qui vixit annos / XXIII dies X qui exivit
virgo de saeculu et / neofitus in pace / parentes fecerunt / dep(ositus) IIII nonas Aug(ustas)’. In this inscription, the parents explicitly
acknowledge that their son had just been baptised. ICUR 19464: ‘Spes Berecundo filio / qui bixit an(nos) XXX birgo bene / mereti
in pace’. ICUR 18458: ‘Asellus qui et Martianus v(ixit) a(nnos) n(umero) XVIII / m(enses) VII / d(ies) XII / investis in pacae / Ve-
rissimus pater filio karissimo’.
50 ICUR 4348: ‘Iulius vernis venustus qui vixit / annos XXI et mensis X depositus / virgo super se IIII kalendas septembres’.
51 ICUR 16173: ‘Eugamio l[ectori] virgini in p[a]ce / qui vixit annis [XXX]VIII me(nse)s II dies XXIII / cu[i titulum? pre]sbyter
Generosus / una c[um patri]bus et frat[ribus posui]t / [depositus] XIII k(a)le(ndas) apriles’.
52 ICUR 12093:’[---]r qui bixit a(nnis) n(umero) X[---] / [---]enus scriptor [---] / virgo et a lege n[eo]fitus [---] / [con]discipuli
rogantes deu[---]’.
53 ICUR 6497: ‘Acomio [virgini]o ben[emerenti qui vixi]t ann[is] / XX mens[ibus] VI diebus [--- dormi]enti i[n] p(ace) / d(ie) V
k(a)l(endas) maias Se[vero et] Ru[fino vv(iris) cc(larissimis) cons(ulibu)s. ICUR 10098: Pontius / Atenago / ras qui / vix(it) an(nos)
XXII / virgo’.
54 For epigraphic evidence for the city of Rome, see C. Pietri, ‘Appendice prosopographique à la “Roma Christiana” (311-440)’,
MEFRA 89:1 (1977), 409-15. For literary testimonies, see J. Mayer, Monumenta de viduis diaconissis virginibusque tractantia,
Bonn 1938. See also F. Grossi Gondi, Trattato di epigrafia cristiana latina e greca del mondo romano occidentale, Rome 1920,
156-8; Janssens, cit. n. 1, 198-210, esp. 206-10.
55 ICUR 19349 (= CIL VI 9655): ‘Sevirinus negotia(n)s emit si<b=V>i locu(m) a / Safargiu fossore sub virginia sua’. The
merchant Sevirinus bought a place to be buried in the catacombs from the fossor Safargius. Perhaps the turn of phrase sub
virginia sua indicates that he did so when he was not yet married. ICUR 17079: ‘Marco virg(in)io Eusebia fecit’. Of course,
there is the possibility that Eusebia was in fact Marcus’ wife. A. Ferrua, ‘Il sarcofago d’un bambino del IV secolo’, La Civiltá
Cattolica 118 (1967), 353-62, v. 2: ‘Theusebio virgini neofito; v. 10: virginemq(ue) gerit, dom(ino) tribuente, corona(m)’. Be-
neath this metrical inscription, the father had the following text inscribed: ‘hic mihi prior filius, hic virgo virginem dedicavi[t]
hunc locum’.
Male Virgins in Latin Inscriptions from Rome 113
The dossier of married male virgins
Table 2 collects the evidence on male virgins known to have been married as they appear in the ICUR col-
lection. A first look at the table immediately reveals the overwhelming occurrence of the term virginius. The
male form of virgo, however, only occurs in an epitaph where a wife honours her husband with the turn of
phrase virgo ad virginem.56 In fact, among all the inscriptions for male virgins with age indication and using
the term virgo, there is not a single inscription for a married male virgin. Virginius thus seems to have had the
connotation of being married,57 while virgo was used in the sense of young and not yet married (analogous
to the female use of the word), or in rare cases to suggest a consecrated life in celibacy. There is only one
inscription for a virginius who seems not to have been married, but the fragmented state of the text makes
this somewhat uncertain.58
While it is clear that virginius is mostly used in the context of married life, the serial evidence does
not allow the drawing of any conclusions on specific types of marriages which might have been designated
by this term. Few scholars would be prepared to endorse the Leclercq thesis that here we are dealing with
‘chaste’ marriages which have never been sexually consummated.59 The use of virginius certainly did not
designate a short duration of marriage, an alliance which was suddenly broken by premature death. On the
contrary, in Table 2 we find marriages that lasted anything from seven or eight months to 34 years, and four
examples of marriages lasting for thirty years. Nor is the emphasis of the virginii inscriptions on exception-
ally long marriage duration, which allows the possibility of couples opting for the brother/sister marriage
and foresaking sexual relationships after having produced offspring.
In about twenty instances, it is possible to calculate the wife’s age at marriage. Table 2 shows ages
ranging from eleven or twelve at time of marriage through mid-teens to early twenties, with the highest
attested age as twenty-five. These numbers match with what we know from earlier research on age of mar-
riage in Christian inscriptions, and reaffirm the Forcellini suggestion that by the use of the term virginius
women indicated their status as a virgin at the moment of marriage: in accordance with both Roman pagan
tradition and Christian expectations it was their first marriage.60 As for men’s first age at marriage, the pau-
city of evidence from virginii makes any claim difficult to substantiate, but the five attested ages suggest an
average age of mid twenties for men at first marriage. Virginius may thus indicate that it was a man’s first
marriage, while it may equally well indicate that his wife entered her marriage with him as a virgin. In one
rare example, virginius is explicitly used for a man in the period before being married – a usage of the term
which must have been taken from the use of a virginitate for wives.61
56 ICUR 11798, see n. 72.
57 Note the use of the Greek partheneikos as an adjective for a husband in ICUR 1869. This rare usage was most probably copied
from the Latin virginius. See Janssens, cit. n. 1, 111. Note that Plut. Pomp. 74. 3 has Cornelia speaking of her first husband as parthe-
nios aner when she expresses the wish that she had died before hearing of his death. See Treggiari, cit. n. 1, 234.
58 ICUR 6497; see note 53. Also the separate use of virginia is extremely rare. Janssens, cit. n. 1, 110 only mentions ICUR
16142.
59 Leclerq, cit. n. 1, 1963 refers to one Roman inscription to validate his thesis: ICUR 9464: ‘dep(ositio) Vi [---] / que vixit inli/
bata cum birgin/ io suo annis V e / [t---]’. However, the adjective inlibata is very rare in inscriptions, and may also have connota-
tions of ‘unabridged’, ‘uninjured’, somehow the equivalent of sine lite. It does indeed appear in connection with virginity in Val.
Max. 6. 1. 4.
60 See Aubin, cit. n. 16 and C. Carletti, ‘Aspetti biometrici del matrimonio nelle iscrizioni cristiane di Roma’, Augustinianum
27 (1977), 39-51.
61 ICUR 13886: ‘ex virginio tuo ben(emerenti) / e meco vixsisti libens c /oniuga innocentissi / ma Cervonia Silvana / refrigera
cum spirita / sancta dep(osita) kal(endas) apr(iles) Tiberi / ano II et Dioni co(n)ss(ulibus)’. On this remarkable and unique usage,
see Diehl 2305 and H. Solin, ‘Zu altchristlichen Inschriften’, GGA 229 (1977), 82-109, esp. 103.
114 CHRISTIAN LAES
Table 3 shows how the husband to wife dedications mentioning a virginius are far more numerous that
the wife to husband ones. While wives were mostly called virginia by their husbands, men did not hesitate to
call themselves virginii in epitaphs they set up for their deceased wives.62 Sometimes chastity and reverence
towards each other is emphasised, as in the case of the virginius Cleopatrus who is said to have been left as
an orphan after the death of his faithful wife Patricia.63 A telling example of the Christian stress on chastity
and marital fidelity is an epitaph in which Probilianus praises his deceased wife (Hilaritas or Felicitas?) for
having been faithful to him during his eight year period of absence. The inscription explicitly states that the
neighbours were witnesses to her virtuous behaviour. By her chastity, the woman had earned her rightful
place in the catacombs of San Callisto:
Probilianus to his beloved (?) virgin. All the neighbours have experienced her fidelity, chastity and
goodness. For eight years, during the absence of her husband (virgini sui), she preserved her chastity.
Therefore she has been buried in this holy place, on the thirthieth of January.64
The link between virginius and married life emerges from the fact that in some inscriptions virginius
seems to have taken the meaning of husband. The turn of phrase cum virginio occurs in the same way that
the formula fecit cum marito is epigraphically attested.65 In one epitaph, virginia is used for the wife Cas-
sanete, and the synonyms maritus/virginius for her husband.66 Moreover, an inscription now in the Quat-
tro Coronati monastery reads as follows: ‘Aurelia Legitima univira / que abuit birginium / XVI kal(endas)
Mar(tias) in pace’. The ICUR-editors rightly remark that the word birginium could mean several things: it
could be a proper name of a husband (Verginius), or just indicate that Aurelia Legitima had been married.
Of course, the latter possibility is already suggested by the word univira, but again, birginium could add to
the Christian flavour of the inscription.67
In one inscription virginius, meaning husband, is placed on the same level as filius.68 In addition, in
another epitaph virginius seems to be synonymous with maritus. Vincentia remembers Phoebe and her hus-
band.69 An epitaph from the cemetery of Praetextatus mentions eighteen years of marriage (cum virginium),
five years of widowhood, and an age of death of 34, leaving us with an early age of marriage at age elev-
en.70 An inscription from the cemetery of San Agnese from 24 November 396 mentions a man who died
at unknown age and his wife who died at approximately 64 years of age. Both are called virginii: again an
example of synonymous use for both partners in a marriage.71
62 Janssens, cit. n. 1, 111-2.
63 ICUR 13196: ‘Vona fidelis casta dulcissima prudens femina Patricia innox / q(uae) vixit ann(is) XXI m(enses) VI d(ies) XVIII
q(uae) fecit cum Cleopatro virg(inio) suo / orfano nunc relincto cum omne religione et castitate ann(os) IIII m(ensem) I d(ies) XIIII.
/ Depost(a) est d(ie) XI kal(endas) mart(ias) benemerente in pace l(ocus) b(isomus)’.
64 ICUR 10953: ‘…tati virginiae suae Probilianus / queius fidelitatem et castitate et bonitate / omnes vicinales experti sunt
quae / annis n(umero) VIII absentia virgini sui suam cas/titatem custodivit unde in hoc loco sancto deposita est III kal(endas)
Febr(uarias)’.
65 ICUR 2864 lines 5-6: ‘et fecit cum {m}marito / suo ann(os) XXI m(enses) III d(ies) III REN MIR (sic)’.
66 ICUR 2730: ‘Maritus bene / merente Cass/ anete virginie / qui vixit ann(os) XXXVI / et dies I fecit cum vircin/ium sunt ann(i)
VI / mes / es X dies X disessit VI / idus Matias’.
67 ICUR 1009. Comm. ad locum: ‘Verginius, nomen proprium an potius maritus’?
68 ICUR 17859: ‘Ienuare quesquenti / quen posuit virginius et / filius benemerenti quesquet / in pace’.
69 ICUR 10280: ‘Vincentia in / petas pro Phoe/be et pro vir/cinio e/ius’.
70 ICUR 14705: ‘[---]na que vixit annos XXXIIII cum virginium fecit annos XVIII vidua fuit annos V deposita in pace XV [---]us
Victor dep[ositus --- no]nis aprilis’.
71 ICUR 20809: ‘[--- benemerent]i in / [pace qui vi]xit ann(os) / [--]II non(as) Ian(uarias) / [A]rcadio Aug(usto) IIII et Ho/ norio
III cons(ulibu)s et / [Iu]stae benemerenti / quae vixit ann(os) p(lus) m(inus) LXIIII / dep(osita) VIIII kal(endas) dec(embres) ips(is)
Male Virgins in Latin Inscriptions from Rome 115
In one case, reference seems to be made to betrothal: an unnamed woman honours her husband, lector
Alexius, with whom she had lived for fifteen years, but who had been linked (iunctus) with her for sixteen
years. Both man and wife are called virgo.72
Only three inscriptions mention virginii as having children.73 However, it would be rash to conclude
from this that the bulk of inscriptions not mentioning offspring imply couples practicing sexual chastity. On
the contrary: such inscriptions belong to the type of husband to wife dedications, or vice versa, which are
also amply attested in pagan epitaphs. In these inscriptions, reticence about children did not automatically
imply that the couple did not have offspring.74
Conclusion
As so often, the well-known brevity of inscription leaves us with unanswered questions. People simply used
terms as virgo and virginius. As they were understood by the audience of those who read them, there was no
need define these terms in stone. However, putting together the serial evidence enables us to crack some of
the epigraphical codes and come closer to an understanding of these inscriptions from the City of Rome. The
masculine use of the word virgo comes very close to the meaning of the feminine form. It usually designated
young and unmarried people, although in some cases reference was made to consecrated religious life. Vir-
ginius was almost exclusively used for married persons. The wide range of attested ages and the appearance
of attested offspring in some cases makes the possibility of chaste and unconsummated marriages unlikely,
but other possibilities are left open. In all likelihood, the allusion was to a girl marrying for the first time and
as a virgin. Both the Greco-Roman and the Christian cultural context indicate this, as well as the fact that
men publicised their having a virgin bride by attributing to themselves the term virginius. Nor is it impos-
sible that virginius referred to the men’s first marriage, perhaps after having a chaste lifestyle beforehand.
Though neither possibility can be proven on the basis of the source material, one single inscription using
the turn of phrase ex virginio tuo (see note 61), the analogy with the feminine virginia, and particulary the
ideological context of the Christian way of life, point in this direction.
One fact, however, is indisputable. The frequent recurrence to the term virginius, and to a lesser ex-
tent the use of virgo as a masculine noun, stand out as a typical features of Christian epigraphy. Readers or
passers-by would undoubtedly have recognised such inscriptions as belonging to the new religion, while
Christians themselves would have acknowleged chastity and virginity as markers of their identity. They
never saw it as a physical technicality, but as a wide and broad-ranging term connotating holiness in body
and spirit.75 As such, the mention of virginity for both males and females became the new fashionable term
of Christian epigraphy, replacing older ‘pagan’ ideals such as the univira, which seems to have become
co(n)s(ulibus) / virginii in pace’.
72 ICUR 11798: ‘dilectissimo marito anime dulcissime Alexio lectori /de Fullonices, qui vixit mecum ann(is) VX iunctus mihi
ann(orum) XVI / virgo ad virgine(m), cuius numquam amaritudinem h(a)bui. / Cesque in pace cum sanctis cum quos mereris. /
Dep(ositus) VIIIX kal(endas) ianu(arias)’. On betrothal, see Janssens, cit. n. 1, 108 referring to ICUR 6049 (Hilaritas being engaged
at age eleven, marrying at age eighteen and dying at age twenty-five).
73 ICUR 4682: ‘Staia benemerenti cum filiis / suis fecit Simplicio virginio / cum quo vixit ann(os) XXX anima / dulcis requievit
in pace’. ICUR 11876: ‘Quiriace quae vixit annis / XXXVII cum virginio suo/ Igino{s} fecit annus XXIII. / Fili fecerunt parentibus
suis in pace’. ICUR 23857: ‘Caesonio Ha[bili? virgi]nio / caris[si]mo be[neme]renti / <q>ui vix[it ann]is X[---] / relic[tis f]il(iis)
n(umero) III [pri]mum / an(norum) VIIII aliu[m an(norum) --- al]ium an(norum) II S[ecu]nda coniunx’.
74 R. P. Saller, ‘Men’s Age at Marriage and its Consequences in the Roman Family’, CPh 82 (1987), 21-34; B. Shaw, ‘The Age
of Roman Girls at Marriage: some Reconsiderations’, JRS 77 (1987), 30-46.
75 Note the partly technical definition in Catholic Church’s present-day Canon law 1037.
116 CHRISTIAN LAES
outdated by that time.76 This is perhaps the most important point to stress in the discussion about Christian
virginii: the term did not have one single concrete meaning, but it was used to imply a pure, virginal and
Christian lifestyle.
In many respects Christianity was indeed at odds with the standards and values of pagan society. In
her recent book, Kate Cooper has explained how Christian thinkers and writers were eager to fit their new
discourse into the rich pagan tradition. To them, the choice of marriage was not diametrically opposed to
the ascetic ideal: living in a family was also a form of asceticism and a way to put Christian virtues into
practice. Moverover, they both reinforced and transformed the institution of Roman marriage. Instead of
a contractual agreement, it became a spiritual and by preference indissoluble tie between two persons, in
which female submissiveness and continence by both partners were strongly emphasised. To Cooper, the
Christianisation of marriage was a late Roman, not a medieval, problem. Already in the fourth century the
need to re-theorise marriage had begun to be addressed, and the Christian identity of the married laity was
far from inarticulate.77 Her excellent book and most valuable theses are not so much about the daily life of
the early Christians, but the complicated and often intangible subject of the interaction between theology
and discourse on the one hand and practice on the other hand. In my view, the evidence on male virgins in
Christian inscriptions reinforces her thesis. In practice, few Christians went as far as the radical ascetics and
strove to banish sexual passion or even procreation. Most of them married, but at least kept the marital ideals
of Christianity in their self-representation on stones. As such, these epitaphs testify to the socialising effects
of religion, and the Christianisation of marriage, which did indeed take place in late Antiquity, a period of
passages par excellence.
Table 1. Male virgins with attested ages
ICUR Age of male virgin Married? Wording dedicators
12093 10 y. + not virgo condiscipuli
23857 10 y. + yes virgi]nio uxor
25005 17 y. not virgo parentes
1845878 18 y. not investis pater
6497 20 y. not [virgini]o --
4348 21 y. not virgo -- (Iulus vernis venustus)
10098 22 y. not virgo --
12459 (= 3935) 23 y. not virgo parentes
20738 (= CIL VI 37207) 28 y. yes virginio uxor
8985 = 15327 30 y. yes virginio uxor
19464 30 y. not birgo mater
351 = 9228 32 y. yes birginio uxor
16173 38 y. not virgini presbyter, patres et fratres
3714 43 y. yes virginio uxor
11906 43 y. yes virgini]o uxor
76 Though the term did not disappear in late Antiquity. See Humbert, cit. n. 1, 347-8.
77 Cooper, cit. n. 12, esp. p. xi.
78 See above n. 47 and 49. See the comment ad locum on investis: ‘sed hic patet idem est ac virgo, ut Tert. de virg. 8 et 11’. The
passage in Festus, to which this comment refers, is Fest. 506 (ed. Lindsay): ‘Vesticeps puer qui iam vestitus est pubertate, econtra
investis, qui necdum pubertate vestitus est’.
Male Virgins in Latin Inscriptions from Rome 117
1132 44 y. yes vi]rginio uxor
2683 46 y. yes virginio uxor
21053 49 y. yes virginio uxor
6002 54 y. yes virginio uxor
15542 55 y.+ yes? virginio uxor?
4335 64 y.79 yes v(irginio?) uxor
22743 70 y.? yes virginio uxor
Table 2. Married male virgins
ICUR Wording Years of Woman’s age Man’s age at
marriage at marriage marriage
331 cum virginio suo ?
419 con(iugi) virg(inio)
351 = 9228 birginio 4 y. 28 y.
1009 que abuit birginium
1132 vi]rginio 6 y. (?) 38 y. (?)
1783 cum virginium suum 13 y.
1826 bixit super virg[inium suum ---]
1991 = 23528 cum virgini[um] su[um] 18 y. 27 y.
2149 cum vir(ginio) 1 y. 25 y.
2683 virginio suo
2730 cum vircinium 6 y. 20 y.
2868 cum vir[ginio suo -- ?
3066 vir[ginio suo 15 y.
3584 cum virgenium ?
3697 cum virg(inio) suo 7 y. 12 y.
3714 virginio
4335 c(arissimo?) m(arito?) v(irginio?)
4682 virginio 30 y.
5351 virginius tuus 26 y.
6002 virginio suo 30 y. 20 y.
6452 cum virginium suum 20 y. 17 y.
8329 cum virginio suo 16 y.
8985 = 15327 virginio suo ?
9673 cun virginio suo 9 y. 14 y.
9392 vircinio suo 18 y.
9464 cum birginio suo 5 y.
10217 cum [virgi]nio suo 30 y.
10280 pro vircinio eius
79 In fact, this is a rather uncertain reading of an inscription which is only preserved in literary copies. ‘T(ito) Fl(avio) Postumio
Varo / c(arissimo ?) m(arito ?) v(irginio ?) qui vixit / annis LXIIII d(iebus) XXXI/ dep(ositus) VII kal(endas) octob(res)/ Sextilia
Iusta f(ecit) / coniugi benemeren/ti in pace’.
118 CHRISTIAN LAES
10953 absentia virgini sui
11241 cum vircinio suo 10 y. 21 y.
11774 [cu]m virginio suo ?
11798 virgo ad virginem 15 y.
11876 cum virginio suo 23 y. 14 y.
11878 cum virginio suo 29 y.80
11896 cum virginio suo 3 y. 16 y.
11906 cum [virgini]o suo 22 y. 21 y.
12551 cum virgini(um) suum 1 y. minus 1 day 15 y.
12648 cum virgi(nio) ?
12732 virginius
13196 cum virg(inio) suo 4 y. 17 y.
13283 cum vir[ginio ---
13654 virgin[io ---] ? y. 7 m.
13886 ex virginio tuo
14461 byrginio suo
14705 cum virginium 18 y. 11 y.
15563 virginio suo
15625 cum virginio suo 12 y. 21 y.
16134 cum virgi[nio suo ---] ?
16537 cum virgi[nium] suum 6 y.
16542 --v]irginio suo
16554 [cum virgi]nio suo 21 y. 16 y.
17014 v<i>rginio coniugi 1 y.
17859 virginius
18002 cum virginio suo 9 y. 17 y.
18492 cum virgio suo 25 y.
18914 cum virginio suo 30 y.
20052 [v]irginio suo
20135 cu[m virginio ---] 6 y.
20365 cum virginio suo 8 y. 14 y.
20738 virginio suo
(= CIL VI 37207)
20809 virginii
21053 virginio suo 18 y. 31 y.
21210 cum virginium suum 10 y. 17 y.
23447 cum virginio 34 y. 11 y.
23782 cum birginium 10 y. + maximum: 18
y.
80 There is an obvious mistake in the numbers, as Quracetis would only have lived for fifteen years: ‘depossio Quracetis que vixit
/ annis XIIIII menses VIII cum / XX virginio suo fecit annos XXVIIII / et dies XXXVIIII Ursacius coiugi /benemerenti in pace / d(e)
p(osita) kal(endas) sep(tembres)’.
Male Virgins in Latin Inscriptions from Rome 119
23857 virgi]nio caris[si]mo
25624 cum vir[ginio suo] ?
25869 a [--- cum] virgin[io suo ?
26771 c]um virgi[nio suo ---] ?
27162 cum virgi[nio suo] 8 m. 17 y.
27184 virginio suo 7 y.
27498 virginio [---]
Diehl 4248 b cum virg(inio) suo 7 m. 18 y.
Diehl 4248 c compari birginio 27 y.
RAC 48 1972, (vir)ginio ?
230-231
22743 virgi[nio---]
Table 3. Dedicators and dedicatees in inscriptions mentioning male virgins
Type of dedication Number of inscriptions
Wife to husband 23
Husband to wife 43
Parents to children 1 (ICUR 20365)
Brother to sister 1 (ICUR 11896)
Children to parents 2 (ICUR 11876; 17859)81
Others for a couple 2 (ICUR 10280; 20809)
81 In ICUR 17859 a father and a son honour their deceased wife and mother.
