Associations
The Social Setting of the Ministry tive. Epictetus describes the ideal symbiotic relationship between a willing young pupil and a household educator.89
There are also cases of Christian teachers setting up schools in the houses of wealthy patrons and patronesses.90 But others were less taken with the idea.
Lucian is especially disgusted at the resident philosopher who becomes wealthy through patronage.91 When he describes the mishaps that befall a resident philosopher who relies for his livelihood on the good will of a patron he is not engaging in mere merriment.92 The philosopher who allows himself to be seduced into waiting on the tables of his patron's guests in order to keep his post is indeed dubious.93 More sober arguments are put forward in the first century
A.D. Cynic letters attributed to Socrates and his disciples. A cause célèbre of the Cynics was how a philosopher was to make his living. Should he beg, accept posts at the homes of the wealthy, or ply his own trade?94 Important in the debate was whether or not Plato, Aristotle, and other philosophers accepted gifts and positions at court.95 The argument among Cynics reveals the importance of the role of the household and patronage in the pursuit of philosophy and the problems to which that setting could give rise.
Associations The Graeco-Roman collegia, thiasoi, and eranoi96 represent the most widespread type of gathering to which we shall address ourselves in this chapter. Among the varied groups which dotted the Graeco-Roman world, some may be described as family clubs. The most famous example telling of a household collegium is the inscription which records "collegium quod est in domo Sergiae Paullinae."97
This may have been a collegium formed by the slaves and clients of a well-to-do family. Patresfamilias often acted as patrons of such collegia domestica, hosting them in their own homes, or providing buildings for them 9 8 There are also examples of Greek clubs established along household lines.99 The degree of exclusiveness of membership varied with different household associations. The third century
B.C. κοινό ν of Epikteta at Thera was constituted primarily but not entirely by household dependants;100 that of Diomedon at Kos (third to second century
B.C.), however, was made up exclusively of family members.101 In most cases, the association was established by the patron in specially provided quarters and was governed by dependants, who used the funds provided by the householder for various banquets in his (or her) honour. In some instances, however, the patron or a blood relative of the founder took over various aspects of leadership in the club. Epikteta, for example, established her daughter's son as priest to her family club. And there are other instances where the founder was the acting head of the club.102
O f course, most clubs were not domestic. But the hierarchical pattern of the household and Graeco-Roman society favoured more prosperous club members as its leaders. In name, Graeco-Roman clubs were democratic and egalitarian; in practice, by the time of the Empire, they were often something quite different. Dill has noted that .. the college . . . of the Antonine age cannot be relieved of the charge of purchased or expectant deference to mere wealth."103
Tertuilian, writing in ca. A.D. 197, reveals, by means of an implied contrast between the Christian church and clubs, the deference to wealth among the