This chapter builds on Chapter 1’s exploration of the ways in which the Roman past became linked to the identity of the Georgian and Victorian present, by focusing in particular on the development of a healing sanctuary narrative. It is argued that the concept of Aquae Sulis as a healing sanctuary results from the modern and pre-modern nature of the spa at Bath, rather than from the archaeological evidence for the Roman period.

Emmelia did not want to get married. As a young Christian living in the early fourth-century Eastern Roman Empire, she wanted to devote her life to Jesus. She therefore chose asceticism. But Emmelia was an orphan. She knew that if she were not to marry, she might be abducted and be married to the abductor against her will. Out of this fear, she decided to get married to Basil, and later bore him ten children. Her son, Gregory of Nyssa, told her story.1

No doubt, the author of this text, Ephrem of Edessa, was a faithful post-Nicene Christian. Ephrem (306–373 CE) was one of the most renowned Syriac Christian writers and is one of the earliest known to us by name. Living in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, Ephrem followed the New Testament and the teachings of the Western Church, and accepted Paul’s abolition of the commandments. Like his contemporaries from the Western Roman Empire, he claimed that the commandments were given to the Jews because of the “hardness of their hearts.” But, he argued, after the Christians had been chosen as the People of God, there was no need for these commandments.

Had Ephrem been asked to directly compare betrothal to marriage, he would have probably replied, as would many Christians of his time: “A man’s betrothed is his wife,” thus claiming that betrothal equates to marriage. In fact, as we will see, Ephrem repeated this statement, along with two variants, several times in his biblical commentary and in his hymns, using it either as a solution to an exegetical problem or as part of a theological discussion. In these cases, he focused on the linguistic aspect of this claim: a man’s betrothed is called a man’s wife. Should Ephrem’s assertion that a man’s betrothed is his wife be regarded purely as a linguistic claim that may serve either a local exegetical need or theological need, or does this claim have a wider context? If so, what is the wider context that influenced it? On the one hand, this statement can be discussed as a legal statement, and as a source reflecting Ephrem’s view on the status of betrothal versus the status of marriage. It may be addressing the question of whether betrothal, the intermediate stage between bachelorhood and marriage, is legally closer to one or the other, and the legal implications thereof. On the other hand, it can be discussed as an exegetical or theological statement, and therefore it could reflect Ephrem’s theological and exegetical discourse, regardless of his legal views.