A Theology of Adoption, Part Seven

Orphans in the Greco-Roman World

The practice of adoption and the problem of orphans were completely distinct issues in the cultures and societies of Greece and Rome. One of the few things the two issues had in common was that they were both, in terms of legal classification, limited to the higher classes of society. “It is difficult to know how far down the social and economic ladder the rules of guardianship had effect. In general, the Roman state shaped its private law to regulate the relationships among society’s elite.”1 The practice of ‘guardianship’ of orphans (defined as children without a living father or grandfather)2 applied to a broader range of Romans than adoption; a guardian did not have to be a Roman citizen, as an adoptee did. But the entire system relied on literacy, lawyers, and court proceedings that would render it inaccessible to the majority of the Empire’s population.

Culturally, orphans were looked down upon. Children and youths whose parents were both living (rare in an age of short life expectancy and dangerous childbirth) were exalted in Ancient Greece as being especially blessed by fortune.3 This value carried on into the Imperial period in Rome; “the emperor Augustus instituted a choir of amphithaleis [youths with both parents living] in 17 B.C. to sing on the Capitoline Hill as part of the emperor’s Secular celebration.”4 If society believed that children with both parents were especially blessed, it stands to reason that they would view children who had lost both parents as especially cursed. Even if the children’s mother was alive, she had no legal authority over them. This element of the Roman response to orphans differed considerably from the Jewish practice, in which mothers and grandmothers took a more active role.5 Roman widows most likely continued to care for and live with their children, but they were not permitted to be legal guardians.6 The motivation behind this was again tied to property rights.

The Roman system of guardianship was convoluted and continually changing. Three types of situations could occur: 1. The extended family would appoint a guardian for the orphans, in which case the guardian had to be a Roman citizen. 2. The father named a guardian in his will before he died, in which case the guardian did not have to be a citizen. 3. “In cases where the deceased father had left no will and the orphans had no living paternal male relative, the praetor urbanus, together with the ten tribunes, appointed a respectable person to serve as guardian.”7 The guardian’s responsibilities mainly involved administration of the orphans’ property until they came of age.8 Unfortunately, the position was often abused, especially as regarded the property rights. Embezzlement by the guardian became such a widespread problem that new governmental positions were created to oversee the prosecution of any injustices.9
Interestingly, though guardians administered the property and often arranged for the orphans’ education, the guardianship did not automatically imply custody of the children. In many cases, the basic care of the children was conducted by others (the mother, maternal relatives, etc).10 In fact, there was a fair amount of societal concern that orphans whose death might financially benefit their guardians should not live with them for fear some harm might come to the children.11

Male orphans placed under the authority of guardians would ‘age out’ of such care at fourteen, and were then expected to administer their own property. They could ask for ‘curators’ to help them navigate this process, but ultimately they became legally independent at fourteen.12 Female orphans, on the other hand, remained under the authority of the guardian for their entire lives, just as a biological daughter would have remained under her father’s authority.13

In all, the system of guardianship was legally complex, prone to abuse by greedy guardians, and only available to a small percentage of the population. Lower class orphans would have had to rely on extended family to take them in, and that was never a sure bet. The practice of abandoning unwanted infants to die was common in Greco-Roman culture, and the poorer classes had a hard enough time feeding themselves without adding extra mouths around the table. In addition to the difficulties of urban poverty, Rome dealt with the consequences of being a conquering empire; one such consequence was a significant population of orphans, both in the territories and in the city. The best hope for these children was to be taken in as slaves; “The Romans did not design their laws of guardianship to address the problem of providing food, shelter, and care for homeless waifs.”14

The Greeks and Romans were clearly not winning any Good Samaritan awards for their approach to orphan care. But what are God’s instructions about caring for the fatherless? Tomorrow’s post will discuss what the New Testament has to say about orphan care.

___________________________________
1. Timothy S. Miller, The Orphans of Byzantium: Child Welfare in the Christian Empire, (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 40.
2. Miller, 24.
3. Miller, 24-25.
4. Miller, 25.
5. Miller, 44.
6. Miller, 44.
7. Miller, 33.
8. Miller, 34.
9. Miller, 34.
10. Miller, 35.
11. Miller, 35.
12. Miller, 36.
13. Miller, 36.
14. Miller, 40.