A Cultural History of Disability in Antiquity

Christian Laes, Christian Laes

• Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic
• Year: 2023
• ISBN:
  9781350028531
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Storia
• Subtopic: Storia sociale

Though there was not even a word for, or a concept of, disability in Antiquity, a considerable part of the population experienced physical or mental conditions that put them at a disadvantage. Drawing on a wide variety of sources, from literary texts and legal sources to archaeological and iconographical evidence as well as comparative anthropology, this volume uniquely examines contexts and conditions of disability in the ancient world. An essential resource for researchers, scholars and students of history, literature, culture and education, A Cultural History of Disability in Antiquity explores such themes and topics as: atypical bodies; mobility impairment; chronic pain and illness; blindness; deafness; speech; learning difficulties; and mental health.

CHAPTER ONE

Atypical Bodies

Extraordinary Body Treatment and Consideration

CAROLINE HUSQUIN

1.1. INTRODUCTION

He will take care to bid the drinkers beware of all those games that, with no intent of seriousness, come roistering into parties like a drunken crowd, lest unawares the members of the party introduce an insolent violence bitter as henbane in their wine as they run riot with their so-called commands, ordering stammerers to sing, or bald men to comb their hair, or the lame to dance on a greased wine-skin. Thus, by way of rudely mocking Agamestor the Academician, who had a weak and withered leg, his fellow-banqueters proposed that each man of them all drain off his cup while standing on his right foot, or pay a penalty. But when it came the turn of Agamestor to give the order, he commanded them all to drink as they saw him drink. Then he had a narrow jar brought to him, put his defective foot inside it, and drained off his cup; but all the others, since it was manifestly impossible for them to do so, though they tried, paid the penalty. Thus Agamestor showed himself an urbane gentleman; and, following his example, one should make his ripostes good-natured and merry.

(Plutarch, Table-Talk 621e–f; transl. P. A. Clement, H. B. Hoffle)¹

Plutarch’s discussion² provides a fair account of the condition of individuals with striking physical characteristics in Antiquity and the various reactions these produce.³ Though victims of taunting or even cruelty, for all that they were not necessarily banished from society, as it has long been thought. Agamestor’s participation in the banquet and the facetious manner of his reaction to mockery attest to this. Even so, such a situation should not be generalized to all individuals in his position. In the Greco-Roman world, everyone stood under the permanent scrutiny of others. It was this gaze, this “eye of the beholder,” to quote R. Garland (Garland 1995; Rose 2003), that decided who should be accepted within the community and who should be excluded. It followed that everything was a matter of perception and portrayal since, with the ancients, at least in literature, the body and its aspect seem to have held particular importance, especially in the case of freedmen, for whom it had to be established whether or not they were fit to accomplish certain activities pertaining to their status (Laes 2014; 2018).

Ancient sources emphasize a number of paradoxes current in Greco-Roman thought in which beauty and ugliness, health and sickness, virtue, morality, and amorality, physical integrity and corporal alteration were bound together intimately. Tackling the question of atypical bodies is not simple, as it cannot be answered by a single definition that applies to all places at all times. Falling into the trap of projecting contemporary concepts onto differing ancient customs, practices, and mind-sets has to be avoided. Atypical bodies in Antiquity do not inevitably match up with those of modern times. In the same way, the criteria employed to allot individuals into the category of those possessing such a body must certainly have evolved within Antiquity itself. Indeed, Republican Rome would not necessarily have considered or treated these subjects in the same manner as Imperial Rome might have done. In the Greek world, these individuals were not treated the same way in Athens or Sparta, for example. The concept of the body is in fact a truly social construct contingent on communities and based on those bodily traits focused on within the social, religious, or military context of their time. While some nineteenth- and twentieth-century researchers popularized the idea that newborns with physical defects were routinely eliminated in Antiquity, newer research has shown that this was not the case. In truth, the matter is far more complex. The present chapter proposes to deal with the problem of the definition, consideration, and treatment of persons deemed non-standard or with an “atypical” body by inquiring into the concept of normality in Antiquity and by defining its standards and deviations.

To shed light on the matter, we shall first seek to define what made a body atypical in Antiquity. Then we shall observe how in Rome the perception of such persons evolved from the time of the Republic to that of the Empire. Finally, we shall look at how they were treated and what status they were accorded.

1.2. WHAT MAKES A BODY ATYPICAL?

1.2.1. The prickly question of defining the norm⁴

Determining what made a body atypical in Antiquity is no easy task because reference to modern categories is out of the question: ancient and current visions do not altogether overlap. Categorizing between mere variations, anomalies, and monstrosities turns out to be tricky (Dasen 2013b: 77), for our way of viewing the body in Antiquity is biased by a long historiographic tradition extolling the irreproachable form of Greek and Roman statuary. Studies on Greco-Roman art have led scholars like Johann Joachim Winckelmann (1717–68), the founding father of antique art history, to consider Greek art as the incarnation of the dream of an ideal body (Dasen 2013b: 78). The Nazis (Dasen 2013b; Van Houdt 2017) later took over the notion that the perfect body of statuary was the norm the ancient Greeks followed, which modern man should emulate if not surpass. The Oxford English Dictionary ⁵ provides several definitions for the term “norm”: “That which is a model or a pattern; a type, a standard”; “A standard or pattern of social behaviour that is accepted in or expected of a group”; or “A value used as a reference standard for purpose of comparison.” The norm is thus a state of regularity that most closely conforms to the standard established as natural or most frequent and from which any deviation is considered abnormal. The norm can also represent a model to emulate or at least resemble as closely as possible. Contrary to modern scholars who have considered statues of ephebes as real bodies and incarnations of a norm or an objective, the ancients knew that the statues evoked an ideal never to be actually found in nature. Xenophon (Memorabilia 3.10) and later Cicero (De inventione 2.1.1–3) set out these ideas in their works. Both explain the process whereby these artistic bodies are in effect the result of the combination of the finest features to be found in different models and not the faithful replica of an actual person in real life. The ancients were fully conscious that those marble statues never exactly represented existing subjects and that there was a divergence between the statuary body and that of a real person. In a society in which sanitary conditions were poor, very few individuals could ever expect to approach such physical perfection (Dasen 2013b: 88–9; Trentin 2017: 234). That was not the aim, anyway. What mattered was to attain what can be qualified as having a “corps ou de beauté convenable” (seemly body or beauty) (Baroin 2015: 31–51). It is fitting to look away from the aesthetics concept of the kalokagathos, as it has been defined, toward the realia, where the notion of the ordinary citizen’s seemly good looks appears more plausible. This formulation used by C. Baroin (2015), to my mind, sheds light on an important point to take into consideration: the bodily norm, or at least what it is assumed to be, is not fixed, but rather is a shifting concept that fluctuates according to varying factors. Gender, for instance, is one such factor, since beauty criteria differ between women and men (Cicero, De officiis 1.130). Other factors vary with age and social conditions. Different traits are expected from a freedman and from a slave. Temporality has also to be taken into consideration when reflecting on the question of inborn or acquired physical characteristics, since a body evolves (Boudon-Millot 2006: 127–41), and not only due to disease and accidents that weaken or disfigure it, but also through the influence of the expectations of society.

A befitting body is not solely the work of nature. Certain aspects may be put down to nature, others are acquired. The citizen’s befitting beauty is a combination of nature’s gifts and of culture; it is both inherited and acquired. Shaping the body begins early in childhood to correct or prevent defects considered shaming. A child’s body was viewed as a ductile entity; it required shaping by a whole program of manipulations, strappings, and massages, enabling it, while growing up, to obtain the appropriate form due to its gender and rank. Good manners must be instilled. To avoid being viewed as effeminate, the future male citizen must, for instance, adopt appropriate body language and an adequate gait (Gleason 2013). Hence, the corporal norm in its context of due propriety can only be defined as going beyond a healthy body in its physical integrity. The real world was far more complex because, in Greco-Roman thought, such a norm was associated with values that outstrip mere physical criteria—values such as morality, health, measure, and, of course, propriety. Deviations from the norm are not necessarily against nature, and conformity can be envisaged according to different criteria. Pseudo-Galen defines conformity according to function.⁶ For him, there are traits that neither comply nor go against nature, such as being too lean or too fat or having a hooked or a snub nose. He simply considers that people with these attributes fail to achieve the right balance. They cannot be taxed with going against nature because they are not handicapped in their ability to act. Conformity can thus be assessed according to a functional principle. A body may deviate from what nature is expected to produce or most usually produces, but as long as the faculties are not impaired, the deviation is not prohibitive. Other authors seem to have favored aesthetic criteria. The implication is that an atypical body cannot simply be defined as one that has suffered the loss of its faculties. Paul of Aegina presents a remedy for a man’s overly flabby chest (Medical Compendium in Seven Books 6.46). Numerous criteria are involved and can concern light transgressions. Their multiplicity is due to the fact that the body was thought to reveal moral virtues and defects. A deformed—or merely unsightly—body was supposed to harbor an evil soul, and vice versa. Hence, the body has a social role; it is an instrument of communication whereby the ancients sought indicators of the character of their fellow creatures. A body may be deemed atypical because it deviates from the norm by being too large, too slim, or too fat, or because it bears marks thought to be revelatory of moral deviance.⁷ These would not necessarily have been malformations or mutilations, but they were considered unseemly and likened to physical injury. Ultimately, the study of the perceptions and representations of bodily differences is a complex one to tackle, so broad and subjective is the notion. The field covers multiple dimensions that touch on gender, geography, temporality, aesthetics, functions, and morals. Defining a Roman bodily norm is as difficult as establishing which bodily anomalies, variations, or deficiencies were accepted, tolerated, ignored, mocked, or rejected by others. Atypical bodies would doubtless have been of many kinds and cannot be made the object of a globalizing categorization; each case needs to be assessed individually.

1.2.2. The causes of transgression are not to be neglected

Given the prevailing sanitary conditions in Antiquity, anatomical variations occurred to greater or lesser extents. Each and everyone in the course of their existence could be affected by an ailment that placed them in the category of atypical bodies. N. Kelley, in a 2007 article (Kelley 2007: 31), evokes how malnutrition, diseases, consanguinity, and heredity were the main causes of congenital deformities. Acquired infirmities were due to a larger gamut of causes, some of which tie in with those already mentioned, including accidents and acts of violence (Husquin 2016: 44–56). Disease is one of the causes of congenital or acquired physical defects. It could be a syndrome contracted by a child in utero or, frequently, a pathology developed during the lifetime of a subject, leaving them with aftereffects or chronic illness. Thus, Thucydides recalls that during the “plague” of Athens, the survivors were deprived of sight and lost their memory or limbs (fingers, toes) (History of the Peloponnesian War 2.49.7–8). Avitaminosis could cause malformations in children, such as bent legs, which Galen (De sanitate tuenda 1.8) and Soranos of Ephesus (Gynaecology 2.16) ascribed to defective swaddling and to the attitude of Roman mothers. The notion of vitamin deficiency being unknown then, the two doctors struggled to find the cause of the defect. Clearly, these children suffered from rickets due to a lack of vitamin D, as attested by the remains of young girls from the fourth century CE, excavated in Lisieux (Blondiaux et al. 2002: 209–15). Pott disease, a type of tuberculosis, could also cause bodily malformations such as the gibbosity observed on an adult male from the necropolis of Towcester (UK) (Anderson 2001: 444–6). Aged thirty to forty, the incurvation of his spine almost formed a straight line. Injuries are another cause of abnormal bodily shapes. Accidents at home, at work, or elsewhere and violence with or without malevolent intent to maim are other possible causes. Galen relates an anecdote (De proprii animi cuiuslibet et affectum dignatione et curatione 4) in which the Emperor Hadrian, in a fit of rage, supposedly threw his quill at a slave and blinded him. Similar acts are recorded in the Digest, including one concerning a master who put out the eye of an apprentice by striking him with a shoe tree (Ulpian, Digest 9.2.5.3). In literature, there are often references to laborers with notable bodily characteristics without it always being possible to link the cause with their profession. Alciphron mentions a lame tailor (Letters of Farmers 24.1) and Pliny a hunchbacked fuller (Natural History 34.11–12). Certain individuals were known to have mutilated themselves or to have been mutilated in order to avoid military service (Wierschowski 1995: 205–39).

He sold a Roman knight and his property at public auction, because he had cut off the thumbs of two young sons, to make them unfit for military service; but when he saw that some tax-gatherers were intent upon buying him, he knocked him down to a freeman of his own, with the understanding that he should be banished to the country districts, but allowed to live in freedom.

(Suetonius, Augustus 24; transl. J. C. Rolfe)

The ablation of thumbs rendered these young men unable to grasp, and thus unfit for combat. Valerius Maximus tells a similar tale of self-harm (Memorable Doings and Sayings 6.3.3).

Ailments that today appear benign and are easily cured could have major consequences on the appearance of individuals in Antiquity. Such was the case with fractures of the bones of the lower limbs that, badly set, would result in a shortening of the leg and an irreversible limp: “But sometimes the bones unite with one another sideways, and the limb is then shorter and misshapen” (Celse, On Medicine 8.10.7). Even more explicit: “It must not be overlooked, however, that if the thigh-bone is fractured it becomes shorter, for it never returns to its former state, and that afterwards the patient treads on the tips of the toes of that leg; but the disablement is much uglier when neglect is added to misfortune” (8.10.5). A woman from the Via Lucrezia Romana I necropolis displays a fracture of the femur that, despite treatment, left one leg ten centimeters shorter than the other (Charlier 2003: 69–73; Graham 2017: 248–66).

Age is another cause of bodily transformation. Numerous authors of satirical works make fun of gray hairs, baldness, wrinkles, long-sightedness, deafness, toothlessness, loss of mobility, and crippled limbs as being so many stigmas of old age and loss of bodily respectability (Parkin 2003). Acquired and congenital anomalies need, however, to be differentiated. The practice of exposing malformed babies, even though it did occur, was probably less widespread than has been written about (Evans Grubbs 2011: 21–36). Nevertheless, authors such as Seneca (De Ira 1.15.2) advised it as a pragmatic measure, reasoning similar actions were already taken in the times of Plato (Republic 5.460c) and Aristotle (Politics 7.1335b, see infra). Mutilations acquired in combat were generally an object of pride, while some pathologies were viewed as punishments for a deviant lifestyle.

Painting too negative a picture of the bodies of the ancients should, however, be resisted. Anthropological examinations invariably reveal anatomical variations of greater or lesser importance from one individual to another. In the absence of soft tissues, however, it is difficult to assess at what point a condition might cause disability. Specifically, not all conditions led to deformities, so were not spectacular and did not necessarily spark off any specific reaction from the community. Other more visible deformities would, by contrast, have generated fear and rejection at the time of the Republic, as conjoined twins and hermaphrodites did.

1.2.3. Extreme cases: Prodigia

Congenital malformations probably sparked the most violent reactions, in particular during Republican times. It was up to the paterfamilias to decide whether or not to expose or eliminate a child considered unfit to be raised, though in certain specific cases the State was expected to take charge of them. Such children were looked upon as the outcome of divine intervention and thus ranked among prodigia; that is, fortuitous or unusual anomalies, notable by their strange characteristics rather than being against nature (Bouché-Leclercq 1882: 75; Engels 2007). Besides malformed children, prodigia included natural phenomena such as showers of earth or earthquakes. Certain physical peculiarities were considered only prodigious and frightening. A. Allély (2004b: 74) identified five categories of human prodigies on the basis of lists in Livy and Julius Obsequens: hermaphrodites, malformed children, precocious children, half-human half-beast creatures, and...