Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Parenthood in late antiquity: The evidence of chrysostom O'Roark, Douglas Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Spring 1999; 40, 1; ProQuest pg. 53 Parenthood in Late Antiquity: The Evidence of Chrysostom Douglas 0' Roark F AMILY STRUCTURE in late antiquity is an evolving topic. Evelyn Patlagean, far ahead of the scholarly field, has published extensively on family structure in this period of transition.1 The topic touches upon other very important issues -religion, asceticism, gender roles, private and public space. While this paper is relevant to some of those tangential issues, its primary purpose is to detail the private relationship between parents and children in late antiquity, drawing upon the abundant writings of John Chrysostom for evidence. Blake Leyerle similarly used Chrysostom to explicate childhood in late antiquity. In separate places she states that Chrysostom indicates on the one hand that parents seem to love their children, but on the other that owing to the use of household slaves, parents did not have much of a relationship with their children.2 In fact, Chrysostom offers compelling evidence that 1 Amon...s her other works, Pauvrete economique et pauvrete sociale a Byzance (Paris 1977); Structure socia Ie, jamille, chretiente a Byzance (IVe_Xle) (London 1981). See also B. Shaw, "The Family in Late Antiquity: The Experience of Augustine," P&P 115 (1987) 3-51; S. Harvey, "Sacred Bonding: Mothers and Daughters in Early Syriac Hagiography," fECS 4 (1996) 27-56; H. Moxnes, ed., Constructing Early Christian FamilIes: Family as Social Reality and Metaphor (London 1997); B. Leyerle, "Appealing to Children, " fECS 5 (1997) 243-270; A. Jacobs, "A Family Affair: Marriage, Class, and Ethics in the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles," fECS 7 (1999) 105-138; G. Nathan, The Family in Late Antiquity (New York 1999). 2Leyerle (supra n.1) 245 (parental love}, 254-255 (lack of relationship). She notes studies of Classical family structure that also suggest the parental relationship was encroached upon by slave nurses and tutors. See K. Bradley, Discovering the Roman Family (Oxford 1991); M. Golden, Children and Child­ hood in Classical Athens (Baltimore 1990). Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 40 (1999) 53-81 © 2000 GRBS 53 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54 PARENTHOOD IN LATE ANTIQUITY parents had a close relationship with their children. Leyerle was primarily interested in Chrysostom's religious/rhetorical use of the subject of childhood, and not the relationship between parents and children. While Chrysostom has traditionally been seen as an im­ passioned voice for asceticism,3 he often displays a detailed understanding of, and empathy for, the strong love that binds and perpetuates family. He does on occasion denounce mar­ riage, sexual procreation, and family-most notably in his trea­ tise De uirginitate. This work, justifiably, has often been cited as typical of fourth-century Christian ascetic rhetoric, not only be­ cause of its ascetic theme but also because of the great prestige and influence that he enjoyed. However, as will be seen, Chry­ sostom throughout his numerous sermons and treatises provides anecdotal testimony that he knew his audience would under­ stand regarding the deep love and joy that parents and children shared. It would seem thoroughly inconsistent and contrary to rhetorical purpose for an impassioned proponent of asceticism to be constantly reminding his audience of the unique joy to be found amongst family. This evidence implies that he was more moderate on issues of marriage and family than a select reading of De uirginitate might suggest. In fact, the evidence of Chrysos­ tom can be used to show that in the fourth-century East, there did exist a general societal desire for children, a desire that was supported by a general understanding that parents normally had a very loving relationship with their children.4 This would 3E.g., E. Clark, "Theory and Practice in Late Ancient Asceticism: Jerome, Chrysostom, and Augustine," Jour. of Feminist Studies in Rei. 5 (1989) 25-46. 4Gillian Clark points out: "The negative interpretation [of asceticism] de­ pends in part on a bleak picture of late antique social relationships. Twentieth­ century interpreters have suggested that spouses were resentful of arranged marriages, and that both men and women were encouraged by medical and philosophical discourse to think of sexual activity as dangerous and depleting. Mothers, it has been said, were in any case indifferent to the children conceived against their wishes and cared for by household slaves": "Women and Asceticism in Late Antiquity: The Refusal of Status and Gender," in V. Wim­ bush and R. Valantasis, edd., Asceticism (Oxford/New York 1995) 40. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. OOUGLAS O'ROARK 55 stand in contradiction to some of the conclusions in the ex­ cellent work of Patlagean. Patlagean's seminal scholarship serves as a benchmark for the study of late antique / early Byzantine social structure. She conjectures that beginning in the fourth century and as a conse­ quence of Christian rhetoric-Chrysostom a foremost example -society began to reject traditional marriage and family.s In tum, this rejection had a significant impact on the d8mography and social structure of early Byzantium.6 Patlagean even goes so far as to say that monastic communities began to replace the central role of the family and family structure.? Again, to the contrary, the sermons and treatises of Chrysostom will demon­ strate a strong recognition of, and empathy for, the continuation of traditional family structure in the fourth-century East. The Evidence of Chrysostom8 No one questions Chrysostom's reputation as a highly skilled rhetorician, but to what extent is the rhetoric of Chrysostom relevant to the broad social realities of the fourth century? The 5Patlagean, Pauvrete (supra n.1) 152-153. 6 Patlagean, "Sur la limitation de la fecondite dans la haute epoque byzan­ tine," Annales ESC 24 (1969) 1369: "La ponction demographique sur la genera­ tion presente, et par consequent sur l' avenir, operee des l' enfance ou a la veille de mariage, comme Ie montrent les recits hagiographiques, dispose desormais d'un procede dont la reussite est demontree par Ie deperissement des formes individuelles de soustraction au mariage a partir du Ve siecle. Ce grand effort constructeur des monasteres se ralentit dans 1'ensemble au cours des dernieres decennies du VIe siecle. Les calamites qui ravagent l'Empire au VIe siecle, dont la peste n'est que la plus grave, surviennent, semble-t-il, au moment ou la ponc­ tion monastique s'exen;:ait depuis assez de generations pour que 1'effet en soit deja cumule. Les consequences de la rencontre ont pu alors etre sensibles." English transl. E. Forster and P. M. Ranum, "Birth Control in the Early Byzan­ tine Empire," in R. Forster and o. Ranum, edd., Biology of Man in History (Baltimore 1975) 1-22. 7Patlagean (supra n.6) 1369: "Telle est du moins la conclusion demo­ graphique que nous proposerions. Mais la structure socia Ie n'en a pas moins ete modifiee de fa~on definitive. La famille et Ie groupe de familles n'y jouent plus un role irrempla~able." 81 have included extensive quotations from Chrysostom so that the reader can judge more accurately the tone of Chrysostom's message. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56 PARENTHOOD IN LATE ANTIQUITY answer depends in part on a determination of his audience. It has generally been argued that Chrysostom's audience was the wealthy upper class.9 No doubt they were part of his audience, but I believe that audience was representative of Christian urban society as a whole-artisans, merchants, etc. Otherwise it is difficult to understand the tumultuous events toward the end of his career when on several occasions mass rioting broke out in support of Chrysostom.10 He enjoyed enormous popularity across a broad spectrum of society because of his eloquence, and because of his ability to convey the Lebensanschauung of non-elites. These are the qualities that make his writings useful for the study of social structure. It is often thought that the fathers of the church, including Chrysostom, were generally hostile to traditional marriage and family structure and widely denounced sexual procreation, instead advocating asceticismY Patlagean, in arguing her case for widespread sexual renunciation in the fourth century, has stated that nowhere in Christian sermonizing can a positive at­ titude be found in regard to having a large family.12 However, in the works of Chrysostom several passages refer to the common desire for many children and the joy that they bring: 9R. MacMullen, "The Preacher's Audience," JThS 40 (1989) 503-511; D. O'Roark, "Close-Kin Marriage in Late Antiquity: The Evidence of Chrysos­ tom," GRBS 37 (1996) 399-411; Leyerle (supra n.1). JOSocr. HE 6.16. On these events see T. Gregory, Vox Populi (Columbus 1979) 41-79, at 68 "Aside from his apparent holiness, the most important factor in explaining John's popularity was his ability to appeal to a wide body of public opinion." See also J. N. D. Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom (Ithaca 1995) 211-271. llOn the complex topic of asceticism some basic works are: P. Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York 1988); S. Elm, "Virgins of God": The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity (Oxford 1994); Wimbush and Valantasis (supra n.4). 12 Patlagean (supra n.6) 1366: "Mais I' eloge de la famille nombreuse en tant que telle ne se rencontre ni dans la predication, bien sur, ni dans les eloges des inscriptions funeraires." See also E. Eyben, "Family: Planning in Greco-Roman Antiquity," AncSoc 11/12 (1980-81) 64: "it should be pointed out that early Christianity nowhere advocates a wealth of children." Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DOUGLAS O'ROARK d yap Kat ~u:yaAll 1, q>povttC; a1tO tOU 1tA,,80uC; ytVEtat, ollroC; ou ltaUOllE8a EUXOIlEVOt aU~1l8f)vat tljv q>povttoa tautllV 1,lltV, Kat E7tto08f)vat tOUtt to 1tAf)80c;, Kat 1tOAAa1tAacrtOV YEvecr8at Kat U1tEtPOV. For although great concern arises from the number, neverthe­ less we do not stop praying that this concern be increased for us, and that that number be increased, and become many times as many and without limit.13 57 In his treatise on virginity Chrysostom described the perfect marriage as one that contained in part, "many fine children."14 If early Christianity did not necessarily advocate large families, Chrysostom at least acknowledged a general societal desire for them. This is not to say that large families were universally desired, as there was some debate over the pros and cons of having many children versus none, or only one: olov, 0 1tatoac; OUK exrov, OUOEV OUtro OEtvOV vOllisn, roc; a1tatOtav· 0 1tOAAOUC; exrov It(XAtV IlEta 1tEVtm;, OUOEV OUtroc; WC; 1tOAUltatOtav aittatat· 0 Eva exrov, OUOEV XEtPOV tou Eva eXEtv vOllisEt. EVtEU8EV yap, q>llcri, Kat pq.8ulliac; ytVEtat, Kat EV A{)ltll tOY 1tatepa Ka8icrtllcrtv , aEl 1tEPl1to811tOC; autip tuyxavrov, Kat oUOElliav E7ttcrtPOq>ljv OExoIlEVOC;. In this way, he who has no children thinks nothing is so terrible as childlessness. Again, he who has many amid poverty alleges nothing is worse than abundance of children. He who has one thinks nothing is worse than to have one. For then, he says, the child becomes lazy and brings distress to his father, always being much loved by him and receiving no reproof.15 Childlessness was considered a malady, and was especially lamented by those who reached old age without children: tcrtE yap 01troc; ot EV yftpq. q>8acravtEC;, llaAlcrta Kat f.V a1tatOtq. tOY a,1taVta Ol(XYOvtEC; XPOVOV, E7tt8ulloUm 1taiorov. For you all know how those who have arrived at old age, and 13 Hom. 4 in 2 Thess. (PC 62.492). 14 Virgo (PC 48.579-580). 15 Hom. 1 in 2 Tim. (PC 62.605). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58 PARENTHOOD IN LATE ANTIQUITY especially those who have passed the whole time in child­ lessness, long for children.16 The poor man might complain of the extreme hardship of raising a large family, but some fathers though burdened with many children nevertheless could not suffer to lose one: KUt yap 1tU'tEPE~ , Kuhot U1tO 't1l~ 1tOAU1tUtOtU~ 1tOAAaKt~ K01t'tO­ IlEVOt, OIlCO~ OUOEVU POUAOV'tat YOVEl<;, ~UPlOt<; au'tov OtapUAAoucrt crKro~~acrt · 7tOAAOt O£ ouo£ p~~acrtv au'tov ~ovov Ota~UAA.oucrtV, aAAa Kat 7ttKpOl<; e7ttxpioucrt EV'teu8£v yiVE'tal, tll~ E1tl8u~la<; EKE1VT\<; OUKE'tt iO'xuouO'T\<; u1tayayetV au'tov 'tIDV avaYKaiwv. In the case of small children, when the child desires childish playthings, with great haste we hide them, such as a ball and such like, in order that they not impede serious matters; but whenever he thinks slightly of them and no longer desires them, we easily give them back, knowing that no damage to him from them remains, as that desire is no longer sufficient to pull him away from serious matters.3D Fatherhood in Late Antiquity Recent work on the relationship between fathers and sons in late antiquity has focused on paternal discipline, in one case the institution of patria potestas, in another the use of corporal punishment.31 The central role of the father in Classical family 27Hom. 52 in Ac. (PC 60.364-365). 28 Hom. 9 in 1 Thess. (PC 62.445). 29 Hom. 23 in Mt. (PC 57.318-319). 30 Hom. 25 in Heb. (PC 63.174); cf. Hom. 23 in Mt. (57.318-319). 31A. Arjava, "Paternal Power in Late Antiquity," IRS 88 (1998) 147-165; 1. S. de Bruyn, "Flogging a Son: The Emergence of the pater flagellens in Latin Christian Discourse,' lEeS 7 (1999) 249-290. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64 PARENTHOOD IN LATE ANTIQUITY structure continues in late antiquity. This is perhaps unsurpris­ ing, but in consideration of Patlagean's theory that society was increasingly rejecting marriage and the procreation of children, it is interesting to find such rich and abundant testimony of paternal affection and traditional family values, especially when espoused by a Christian rhetor. The authority of the pater­ familias was still extensive but in reality society dictated restraint. The continued existence of the ancient consilium also served to mitigate a father's authority and to allow family members to participate in domestic decisions.32 Chrysostom testifies to the demonstration of paternal affec- tion toward even very young children: OUX <>pro,.u:v 'tCx nC(lOla, o'tav uno 'trov na'tEpc.ov ~ao'tas6IlEVa EV'tElVn nA:llYCx<; d<; 'tCx<; yvu9ou<; 'tOU na'tl]p ~OEc.o<; napExEt 'tip nalOt 'tfj<; opyf\<; £1l J-LuAAov 0 e£6~. For if a father does not consider his own dignity, but lisps to his children and calls food and meats and drinks not by their Greek names but by some childish and barbarous word, so far more does God.35 65 Clearly Chrysostom was describing behavior that he expected his audience to be easily familiar with. Fathers carrying their young children about and engaging with them in "baby-talk" are portrayed as everyday life. Chrysostom takes for granted that a father is interested in his children and cares for them, even at this early stage of developement when they are especially fragile. Chrysostom considered paternal love to be wholly natural and perhaps even unavoidable: "Kat oi 1ta'tEp£~, 1111 1tUpopyi~E'tE 'ta 'thvu ullrov, aAAa EK'tPEtAO(j'tOpyo~ 1to.lbtq> 8uO'tUxro~ EXOVtl 1tPO~ a1to.vto., 1to.vto.xou O'uJ.l1tepuxyoov Ko.1. crUJ.l1tep1o.KoAou8rov . ... just as an affectionate father with a child who is un­ fortunate in all things, leading or following about with him everywhere.38 Chrysostom was also familiar with indulgent fathers who spared nothing so that their children might not suffer unhappi­ ness: 1tOAAa Ko.1. 1tEPo. tOU 8Eovto~ Ot 1to.tEpe~ xo.pi~OVtC£l tol~ 1tC£l0'l, trov O'1tAayxvoov o.UtOl~ 8w8epJ.lC£lV0J.lEVooV [£Kelvo1] trov 1to.tP1- KroV' KaV 1:8000'1 to 1to.l8l0V Ko.tl1!P1aO'o.v, tl1KoJ.levov, o.Uto1. J.laA­ Aov £1CttVOU 8aKVOVto.l, Ko.1. ou 1to.UOVtC£l, Eoo~ av ti1~ a8uJ.lto.~ tl]v 1l1to8tO'lv avEAooO'l. Fathers give their children many things even beyond what is needful, their fatherly hearts being warm toward them; when they see their child downcast, pining, they are themselves more afflicted than he, and do not stop until they have removed the cause of his dispiritedness.39 36Hom.21 in Eph. (PC 62.150). 37M. Golden, "Did the Ancients Care when their Children Died?" CaR 35 (1988) 152-163. 38Hom. 14 in Rom. (PC 60.534). 39 Hom. 9 in Phil. (PC 62.253-254). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DOUGLAS O'ROARK 67 Chrysostom further illustrates the interaction and concern of fathers for children in the context of everyday life: . .. E1tEl. lCal. 1ta'tl]p ov'ta oioa~ov EUAap" £K 1tpro'tT]~ ilAtKia~. I do not cease from exhorting you and begging and entreating, that before all else you first train your sons ... Raise an athlete for Christ. I do not say this, divert him from marriage, send him to the deserts, prepare him to choose the monastic life; this I do not say. I wish for this and have prayed for everyone to allow it; but since it seems to be a burden, I do not require it. Raise an athlete for Christ and teach him from first youth to be pious while dwelling in the world.51 Thus Chrysostom understood that despite all the Christain rhet­ oric promoting asceticism, the social reality of fourth-century Antioch meant the continuation of traditional family structure. 52 He understood that urban families were not commonly rejecting marriage as Patlagean has suggested. Chrysostom in fact recog­ nized that most of his audience would continue to raise their children in an urban and secular context, and the point of this address was to encourage parents to provide the moral guidance that these children would need to avoid the sinful temptations of the city. He advised parents to point out the finer achievements of statesmen and soldiers as examples toward which children should aspire.53 A father, in his capacity as instructor and disciplinarian, had recourse to several means of discipline. In the case of young children, a father might resort to corporal punishment or refus­ ing the child a place at the dinner table.54 Chrysostom recog­ nized these methods as common forms of discipline and he also understood them to be manifestations of fatherly love.55 A child who was especially forward and difficult to control might ac­ tually have his feet tied and be subject to special rules that 51 Educ. lib. (Schulte 8.19; Laistner 95). 52 For the best discussion of the rhetoric of Chrysostom and the reality of Antioch see P. Brown, The Body and Society (New York 1988) 305-322. 53 Educ. lib. (Schulte 28.84; Laistner 120-121). 54Stat. 16 (PC 49.168), 7 (49.94), 17 (49.176). 55Stat. 7 (PC 49.94). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DOUGLAS O'ROARK 71 prevented him from leaving the house.56 In extreme cases, dis­ orderly children who were undutiful to their parents deserved to be servants.57 It was necessary to combine fatherly advice with strict discipline so that children might learn not only the course of proper behavior but also a fear of delinquency.58 Saller has made the case that in Classical Rome corporal punishment was reserved for younger children while older sons were not beaten but instead threatened with disinheritance. 59 This would also appear to be the case in late antiquity.6o In several homilies Chrysostom discusses the occasional need for fathers to expel their immoral and misbehaving sons from the paternal household.61 It was incumbant upon the father to en­ force this sort of discipline to prevent sons from licentiousness such as gambling and carousing.62 If the wayward son corrects his behavior and once again shows himself worthy of paternal favor it is possible that he will be restored and may again succeed to his father's inheritance.63 But Chrysostom recognized that some fathers were overbearing and misused their authority and the practice of disinheritance: aUa. ti q>TJCT1; "~~ 7tapopyil;£t£ 'ta. t€lCVa v~i.Ov," olov 01 7toUOt 7tOlOUCT1V, a7tOKAl1 pov6~ou~ EpyaI;6~£vol, Kat a7toKl1 PUK'tOU~ 7tOl­ OUVt£~, Kat q>OptlKi.O~ E7tlK£i~£V01, oUx. ffi~ EAEUe€pOl~, aAA' ffi~ avOpa7t0001~. Ola. 'tOUtO G'l1CTt· "~~ 7tapopyiI;E'tE 'ta. 't€lCVa v~i.Ov." But what does he (Paul) say? "Do not provoke your children to anger," as many do, making them disinherited and coarsely 56 Hom. 39 in Gen. (PG 53.366). 57 Hom. 22 in Eph. (PG 62.157). 58Hom. 4 in Heb. (PG 63.44); Stat. 7 (49.94). 59R. Saller, "Corporal Punishment, Authority, and Obedience in the Roman Household," in B. Rawson, ed., Marriage, DIVorce, and Children in Ancient Rome (Oxford 1991) 162. 60De Bruyn (supra n.31) 282-283. 61Paralyt. (PG 51.51); Diab. 1 (49.249); Hom. 18 in Gen. (53.149). 62 Hom. 59 in Mt. (PG 58.582-583); Hom. 22 in Eph. (62.162). 63 Diab. 1 (PG 49.249). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72 PARENTHOOD IN LATE ANTIQUITY imposing on them as though free but slaves. This is why he says liDo not provoke your children to anger."64 This passage also demonstrates the possibilty of a tense re­ lationship between some fathers and sons. Chrysostom, however, while allowing for the great authority of a father, also recognized that nature and custom tempered the harshness of this authority: Kat 0 natT]p oE anD t£ troy til~ cpucr£w~, anD t£ troy YOIlWY trov E~We£y Il£ta nOAAil~ til~ d)KOAia~ lCEXPT]tat tn Kata tOU natOO~ apxn' Kay aKOYta nato£ucrn mt EmnM~n, ouoti~ 0 KWAUcrWY, aAA' ouo£ auto~ EK£tYO~ aYttpAE'I'at owl]cruat. And the father, from both his nature and external custom, employs his rule over his son with much good temper. And if he instruct an unwilling son and strike him, there is no one who will prevent it, but that man will not be able to look him in the face.65 Chrysostom in fact believed that fathers and sons were naturally inclined to be friends, but he also understood that the father-son relationship could be less than idea1.66 It seems to have been widely understood that fathers and sons would normally have a close relationship,67 and Chrysostom called upon fathers to bring their sons to church.68 The evidence of Chrysostom displays considerably more emphasis on the relationship between father and son than on that between fathers and daughters. He only rarely specifically refers to this relationship, and it is always characterized by a protective father superintending his daughter's chastity and worthiness. 69 A father's love for his daughter was best evi­ denced in the arrangement for a suitable husband who would 64 Hom. 21 in Eph. (PG 62.150, on Eph. 6:4). 65 Hom. 10 in 1 Thess. (PG 62 .455). 66 Hom. 1 in Col. (PG 62.303). 67 Hom. 32 in 1 Cor. (PG 61.272); Hom . 4 in Heb. (63.43-44). 68 Hom. in Rom. 12:20 (PG 51.176). 69 Sac. 3 (PG 48.657). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DOUGLAS O'ROARK 73 make her happy. It was Chrysostom's opinion that a father, by attending the theater, disgraced and demeaned his daughter?O Fathers, even on their deathbed, should be mindful of protecting the best interests of their children. A father who is dying should choose one of his relatives to assume the fatherly role over his children.71 Otherwise, widows displayed great concern that their children might suffer through lack of a father's protection and guidance. 72 It was fitting that aged fathers should be attended to their graves by their sons?3 Motherhood in Late Antiquity Motherhood began with childbirth, without modem medicine and a painful and dangerous procedure. Chrysostom recognized that the danger and pain of childbirth could be used as a power­ fully persuasive argument-at least to the potential mother­ against having children, and he made just such an argument in his treatise on virginity: Kav /lEV Eu8EW~ Ku1]ta tTl<; OiKeta<; apEt11<;; Ill] yap hetVTl tOUtO 'tat<; aAAa1<; E~EKAElcrE; 'ti oily ltpo<; ta<; ltap8Evou<;; ti oe 1tpo<; ta<; cr'teipa<;; 'tt oe ltpo<; 'ta<; Xllpa<;, ta<; 1tptV 11 tEKEtV 'to\><; avopa<; a1topaAoucra<;; altoAwAamv; £A1ttoa OUK Exoum; Kat Ill]V ai 1tap8EVot eicrtV ai JlUAtcrm EUOOKtJlOucrat. ti ltOtE oily pOUAEmt ElltEtV; .. . 0 oily A£YE1, toutO £crttv ' Ott Wcr1tEP 1tUVtE<; alt£8avov (iV8PWlt01 ota tou evo<;, £1tE10f) 0 ei<; TlJlaptEV, outw Kat 1taV to YUVCltKElOV yevo<; 1tapePTl, EltEtOl] EV 1tapapucrEt YEYOVEV il YUvll. IlTlOev oily aAyeitw' EOWKEV au'til 0 8EO<; ltapallu8tav ou IltKPUV, 'to tEKEtV 1tCltOta. aAAa toutO t11<;