The Origins of Caesarian Section

Feature image from KRISTIE LLOYD

A Caesarian, or C section, is the medical term for the intervention of childbirth where the baby is cut and removed from the womb of the mother by doctors.

It is believed that there is only one known case of a woman giving herself a caesarian section without a doctor, where both the mother and child survived.  On March 5, 2000, in Mexico, Inés Ramírez performed a Caesarean section on herself and survived, as did her son, Orlando Ruiz Ramírez.  She was tended to shortly afterwards by a nurse and was taken to hospital.

It is rumoured that Caesarian Sections got their name from the infamous Roman Ruler Gaius Julius Caesar.  Caesar left an enormous legacy on the world we know today, influencing the world we live in and the way in which we speak.

The earliest record of Julius Caesars birth was in a 10th century document The Suda, a Byzantine-Greek historical encyclopaedia, citing Caesar as the namesake of the Caesarean section, stating ‘The emperors of the Romans receive this name from Julius Caesar, who was not born. For when his mother died in the ninth month, they cut her open, took him out, and named him thus; for in the Roman tongue dissection is called ‘Caesar.’

Julius Caesar has been flouted for centuries as the first to be born in this way, by cutting open the mother to remove the child, therefore the process was called a ‘Caesarian’.  This is in fact a myth.  Caesar was not born by Caesarian section.

This text states that Caesarians are not named after Caesar but instead Caesar was named after Caesarians.  In Latin caesus is the past participle of caedere meaning “to cut”.

But it gets more complicated than that because Julius Caesar wasn’t even born from a caesarian section.  Not only did were they not named after him, he never even had one.

The practice of cutting a baby from it’s mother was actually part of the law when Julius Caesar was born however it was only ever preformed after the mother had died.

Known as the Lex Caesaria, the law was established in the time of Numa Pompilius 715-673 BC, hundreds of years before Julius Caesar was born, stating that if a pregnant woman died, the baby had to be taken from her womb.

Britannica online states that the law was followed initially to comply with Roman ritual and religious custom which forbade the burial of pregnant women.  Religious practice at the time was very clear that a mother could not be properly buried while she was still pregnant.

As knowledge and hygiene improved the procedure was later pursued specifically in an attempt to save the child’s life.

As a testament to the fact that women did not survive caesarians, the Lex Caesaria required the living mother to be in her tenth month or 40 -44th week of pregnancy before the procedure was performed, reflecting the knowledge that she could not survive the delivery.

The Ancient Roman caesarean section was first performed to remove a baby from the womb of a mother who died during childbirth. Caesar’s mother, Aurelia, lived through childbirth and successfully gave birth to her son.  Julius Caesars mother was alive and well during his life.

A common misperception holds that Julius Casear himself was born in this fashion. However, since Caesar’s mother, Aurelia, is believed to have been alive when he was a grown man, it is widely held that he could not have been born in this way.

It was Pliny the Elder, born 67 years after Caesars death, who theorised that Julius Caesar’s name came from an ancestor who was born by Caesarean section, and that his mother was following the family tree when naming her child.

It is unknown why Julius Caesar was named after the latin word meaning ‘to cut.’  Perhaps we will never know.

Mother’s Day

Today almost every country in the world celebrates mothers day in some way.  More phone calls are made on Mother’s Day than any other day of the year?  It is one of the biggest international gifting holidays and is second only to Valentines day in flower sales.  But this was never the intention when Anna Jarvis campaigned for her Mothers Day Memorial.

Mothers day was never meant to develop into such a profitable and economic commercial machine.  So how did it get so out of control and what is the history behind Mothers Day?

Many religions around the world have long held celebrations and religious festivals for mothers and mother hood.  The Roman Catholics held a similar celebration for the Mother Mary.  In Hindu Mother’s Day is called “Mata Tirtha Aunshi” meaning  “Mother Pilgrimage fortnight”, and is celebrated on the new moon day in the month of Baisakh, i.e., April/May.  This celebration pre-dates the creation of the US-inspired celebration by at least a few centuries.  

Even in America there was another precursor to Mother’s Day.  In 1870 Julia Ward Howe wrote the “Mother’s Day Proclamation,” A call to action that asked mothers to unite in promoting world peace. Maybe we should give this try.  It was a reminder of the power mothers have when they come together.  The way in which they raise their children will in fact change the landscape of the world.  This Proclaimation was tied to Howe’s feminist conviction that women had a responsibility to shape their societies at the political level.  It was a reminder of the power that women held within the home, shaping the lives and minds of their children.

It was about Mothers and women taking action on this day, instead of passively waiting to be given presents.  In 1872 Howe asked for the celebration of a “Mother’s Day for Peace” on 2 June of every year, but she was unsuccessful.

The Mothers day we know today was first held in America in 1908 and was a very private and important day when Anna Jarvis held a memorial for her mother in Grafton, West Virginia.  Anna Jarvis held carnations at the first Mother’s Day celebration, because carnations were her mother’s favourite flower.

Anna’s mother Ann Reeves Jarvis, died in 1905.  She was a peace activist who cared for wounded soldiers on both sides of the Civil War and created ‘Mother’s Day Work Clubs’ to address public health issues.  These clubs also help to teach local women how to properly care for their children.

After her mother passed away, Anna’s mission was to honor her mother by continuing the work she started and to set aside a day to honor mothers, “the person who has done more for you than anyone in the world”.  It took 6 years of campaigning as the States of American slowly begun to acknowledge and celebrate the Day.  Mother’s day was not made an official United StatesPublic holiday until 1914.

It is not just about the maternal bonds between mother and child, it is about the positive impact mothers have on society and the work they do for their children, the community that can often go over looked.  In the beginning Mother’s day was about giving mothers power and reminding them of what can be achieved when women and mothers come together.

By the early 1920s, Hallmark and other companies started selling Mother’s Day cards and florist were starting to profit from the sale of flowers, mostly carnations the recognised symbol of mothers day.  Wearing a white carnation on mothers day was a way honour a deceased mother, while wearing a pink carnation was to honour a living mother.

What is interesting about Mothers day is that the woman who started it all, Anna Jarvis would later be the one to most furiously denounce it.  In the years following the recognition of Mothers Day, Jarvis saw the holiday’s commercialisation, profiting and mis representation.

She was particularly against the sale of pre-made standardised Mothers Day Cards.  Jarvis believed mothers day was about long hand written letters to Mothers for their thanks.  It was a day to go to church with your mother and hear the Mothers Day Mass.

Jarvis became so embittered by what she saw as misinterpretation and exploitation of Mother’s Day that she protested and even tried to rescind Mother’s Day.

Mothers day is now very firmly established in calendar.  In the U.S. alone, Mother’s Day 2012 spending will reach $18.6 billion—with the average adult spending more than $152.52 on gifts, the National Retail Federation estimates.

But it is not all about carnations, tea and hand made cards.  Mothers Day often coincides with a large birth spike in August of the following year.  Interesting.

The Development of Constantinople, AD 324-565

The city of Constantinople, capital of the late Roman and Byzantine Empire’s, was one of the last great ancient cities. Located at the mouth of the Bosporus straights and controlling access between the Mediterranean and Black Seas, Constantinople was strategically located to control the lucrative trade routes to the east.

Between the cities dedication in AD 324 by Constantine I and the death of Justinian I in AD 565 (generally considered to have been the last Roman Emperor), Constantinople experienced a prolonged period of growth and development.

The study of Constantinople’s development is particularly important as its development represents a bridge between the Greco-Roman models of city planning of antiquity to the period of medieval (i.e. Byzantine) urban development.

In general, we can divide the cities development to three distinct phases. The first, beginning with Constantine I’s choice of Byzantium as his new imperial capital in AD 324 was a massive enlargement of the existing city.[1] During this phase, which consisted mainly of replicated established Roman and Greek conventions of town planning, most the city’s infrastructure was laid down.

These included central avenue (Mese) running east-west through the city, along with numerous forums lined with colonnades, bath complexes, an aqueduct, granaries, and a vast hippodrome to entertain the population.[2]

The second phase of the Constantinople’s  development began around AD 405, when a new series of land fortifications known as the Theodosian Walls were built.[3] Though this greatly extended the city’s perimeter, the areas between the old and new fortifications were only sparsely populated.[4]

In time however, a massive cemetery, numerous monasteries, along with several cisterns were established in this area of the city.[5] Thus, the area between the cities two fortified lines became an urban space that was “neither truly urban nor truly suburban”.[6]

The third and final stage of the city’s development occurred after AD 450, and witnessed the steady rise of the Christian churches influence in the city. Throughout the 5th century, the number of churches and monasteries greatly multiplied within the cities walls, and gradually altered the social and cultural make-up of its urban space.[7]

Churches, for example, became the focal point the city’s religious life, as well as serving as centers for social welfare. They were the primary centers of distribution of charity and often functioned as hospitals, hostels, and old-age homes.[8] Over time, the neighborhood church gradually displaced the Roman bathhouse as the primary center of social gathering.[9]

Plan of Constantinople

In many respects, Constantinople was both blessed and cursed by geography. Though easily defended from the sea, Byzantium was vulnerable to attack from land. Lacking any natural land barriers to deter invasion, logic dictated the construction of a land wall in order to defend Constantine’s new imperial capital.

Though Constantine had built the city’s first land walls in the 320s, the rapid expansion of the city necessitated an expanded perimeter with a new series of fortifications.

These were designed by the cities Praetorian Prefect, Anthemius during the reign of Theodosius II (AD 408-450).[10] Known as the Theodosian Walls, these fortifications were to be Constantinople’s primary defensive fortifications for the next 1000 years. The fortifications consisted of three layers.

Advancing towards the city, an enemy army was first faced with a large moat.[11] On the moats other side was a low wall, separated from a second (though slightly higher) wall of fortifications by a large courtyard.[12] Finally, there was a third, and far more impressive inner wall; over 30 ft. high and roughly 15 ft. thick, this inner wall was also inter-spaced with 96 towers running along its entire length.[13]

Remarkably, the Theodosian Walls were completed in AD 413, merely nine years after construction began.[14] Constantinople was also protected along its vast and exposed coastline by a formidable line of fortifications, known as the Sea Walls.[15] The nature of Constantinople’s defensive fortifications represented the culmination of a trend in the later Roman Empire, in which cities of all sizes increasingly constructed ever more elaborate fortifications to fend of both foreign invasions and barbarian incursions.[16]

Nevertheless, Constantinople’s fortifications were not only the most extensive built in the ancient, and subsequently medieval world, but also the most successful.[17]

The population of Constantinople is matter of some debate. Prior to Constantine’s expansion, ancient Byzantium probably had a population in the vicinity of 20,000.[18] Within a hundred years that number had swelled to roughly 350,000 in the middle of the 5th century.[19] By the time of Justinian’s reign in the middle of the 6th century, the city’s population had probably swelled to roughly 500,000.[20]

The logistical problem of supplying Constantinople’s burgeoning population with food required an equally impressive expansion in the city’s infrastructure. Throughout the period in question, most of Constantinople’s food (including all its grain) had to be imported, principally by sea.[21]

Most of Constantinople’s grain and corn came from Egypt, and it required a vast armada of ships to transport the grain to the city.[22] Indeed, such was the cities dependence on Egyptian grain and corn that even a slight delay in the transport of such food staples that it could lead to starvation and rioting throughout the city.[23]

To accommodate the massive volume of shipping, Constantinople possessed over four to five kilometers of wharves throughout the harbors along both the Golden Horn and the Marmara Sea.[24] Though the city possessed two main harbors, the Prosphorion and the Neorion, it is likely that there were many smaller dockyards, as the two harbors listed above only had a combined wharfage 1.5 kilometers, which would have been grossly insufficient.[25]

In addition, a vast array of warehouses must have lined the docks in order to store the large quantities of food stuff. Taken together with facilities that must have existed to distribute and process the imported food stuff, and one begins to get a sense of the vast logistical problems faced by the late-Roman state in Constantinople.

As befitted an imperial capital, Constantinople contained numerous monumental public buildings. Primary among these were the cities many basilica’s and churches, reflecting the Christian character of the capital. By far the largest, and most impressive, church in Constantinople was the Hagia Sophia, the church of the Wisdom (Sophia) of Christ.[26] The current cathedral is the third such structure to occupy the location.[27]  The new Hagia Sophia was built to honor Justinian’s military conquests and to demonstrate his religious piety.

Designed by Anthemios of Tralles and Isidore of Miletos, the basilica was built in an extraordinarily short period of time between AD 532 and AD 537.[28]  Its design was both breathtaking in scope and innovative in that it marked a clear departure from the traditional basilica layout of a church. It combined the longitudinal layout of the basilica with a domed interior space of a centrally planned structure.[29]

Hagia Sophia

The centerpiece of the church was a massive dome, 31 meters in diameter and rising 62 meters above the floor.[30] However, the Hagia Sophia had to be repaired after its dome collapsed after a massive earthquake in AD 558, and was re-dedicated shortly before Justinian’s death in AD 562.[31]

The Hagia Sophia would become the model for many Eastern Roman (and subsequently Eastern Orthodox) churches, such as the Hagia Irene on Constantinople’s outskirts, and would remain the largest church in the world for nearly 1000 years, until the construction of the cathedral of Seville in 1506.[32]

Another monumental structure that dominated Constantinople’s public space was the Hippodrome. Begun possibly in the late 2nd century AD, and only completed in the 4th during the reign of Constantine I, the Hippodrome was the site of chariot races as well as public ceremonies, such as Imperial triumphs.[33]

The Hippodrome was the center of Constantinople’s social and entertainment life for centuries, and played host to the capitals two rival chariot and political factions; the Blues and the Greens.[34] It also provided the citizens of the city to voice grievances against the Emperor en masse; as was the case of where Nika Riots in AD 532.[35] Above all, the Hippodrome was an inheritance of classical Roman town planning, in contrast to the Hagia Sophia and other churches that represented a transition in traditional forms of Roman architecture.

There is considerable controversy over whether or not Constantinople was a regularly planned city. Unfortunately, the modern urban sprawl of Istanbul means that very little evidence is available in order to reconstruct ancient Constantinople’s street system. To date, only one discernible processional avenue has been identified, the Mese, and even this street has only been excavated 100 meters or so.[36]

Nevertheless, there is some indication that Constantinople was designed to be, if not a grid-planned, at least laid out along a logical fashion with some attempts to impose a grid upon the landscape.

Given the layout of the city`s various churches and monumental structures, it is possible to conclude that the city was not planned on a regular grid system. For example, the church of Hagia Sophia runs perpendicular to the main road, while the church of St. Eirene, turned slightly to the south, does not align to the main avenue and would seem to be located in an irregular city block.[37]

The planning of Constantinople was inhibited by a number of factors, the most important of which was the geography of the city itself, which in the words of one observer, was a “continued ridge of hills, each divided by a valley.”[38] Thus, it would have been extremely difficult to apply a unified grid-system throughout the city, given the absence of a continuous flat plain.

It therefore became necessary to use extensive terracing throughout the city in order to create some degree of level foundation for both public and private buildings.

Finally, it must be stressed that the development of Constantinople was a result of its unique geographical conditions, the rapid expansion of the city’s population, as well as to larger trends that affected the development of other late-Roman cities. The geography of Constantinople, with its hilly terrain, meant that a systematic grid plan was impractical.

This, combined with the rapid growth of the city and the lack of skilled architects meant that Constantinople’s development was at times haphazard, even though some attempts (such as the great processional avenue) were made to impose a degree of order on the cities layout.

The lack of defensible frontiers along its landward axis also dictated the creation of a series of impressive fortification systems. Massive ports, dockyards, and warehouses were required all along the cities coastline in order to accommodate the volume of ships necessary to supply the capital adequately with imported food.

Above all, the development of Constantinople from the 4th to 6th centuries AD can be seen as indicative of many of the transformations that were sweeping through the Mediterranean world and that marked the end of antiquity and the beginning of the medieval period.

Bibliography:

Bassett, Sarah Guberti. “The Antiquities in the Hippodrome of Constantinople,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 45 (1991): 87-96.

Berger, Albrecht. “Streets and Public Spaces in Constantinople.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 54 (2000): 161-172.

Crow, James. “The Infrastructure of a Great City: Earth, Walls and Water in Late Antiquity Constantinople,” in Lavan, Luke; Zanini, Enrico; Sarantis, Alexander, Technology in Transition: A.D. 300–650, BRILL: 2008, 251–285.

Gregory, Timothy E. A History of Byzantium. Blackwell History of the Ancient World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.

Haldon, John. Warfare, State, and Society in the Byzantine World: 565-1204. Warfare and History. London: University College London Press, 1999.

Maas, Michael ed. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Magdalino, Paul. “Medieval Constantinople: Built Environment and Urban Development,” in The Economic History of Byzantium: From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, Washington, D.C. Dumbarton Oaks, 2002, : 529-537.

Mango, Cyril. “The Development of Constantinople as an Urban Centre,” in The Seventeenth International Byzantine Congress, Main Papers. New Rochelle, N.Y., 1986, 117-136.

Taylor, Rabun. “A Literary and Structural Analysis of the First Dome on Justinian’s Hagia Sophia, Constantinople.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 55, No. 1 (Mar., 1996): 66-78.

Turnbull, Stephen. The Walls of Constantinople, AD 324-1453. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2004.

[1] Paul Magdalino, “Medieval Constantinople: Built Environment and Urban Development,” in The Economic History of Byzantium: From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, (Washington, D.C. Dumbarton Oaks,2002): 529.

[2] Magdalino, 529.

[3] Magdalino, 529-530.

[4] Cyril Mango, “The Development of Constantinople as an Urban Centre,” in The Seventeenth International Byzantine Congress, Main Papers. (New Rochelle, N.Y., 1986): 118.

[5] Mango, 118.

[6] Magdalino, 530.

[7] Magdalino, 530.

[8]Magdalino, 530.

[9] Magalino, 530.

[10] Stephen Turnbull, The Walls of Constantinople, AD 324-1453, (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2004): 5.

[11] Turnbull, 10.

[12] Turnbull, 10.

[13] Turnbull, 12.

[14] Turnbull, 7.

[15] Turnbull, 15-16.

[16] John Haldon, Warfare, State, and Society in the Byzantine World: 565-1204, Warfare and History, (London: University College London Press, 1999), 249-250.

[27] James Crow, “The Infrastructure of a Great City: Earth, Walls and Water in Late Antiquity Constantinople,” in Lavan, Luke; Zanini, Enrico; Sarantis, Alexander, Technology in Transition: A.D. 300–650, (BRILL: 2008), 268.

[18] Mango, 120.

[19] Mango, 120.

[20] Michael Maas, ed. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 67.

[21] Maas, 69.

[22] Mango, 120.

[23] Mango, 120.

[24] Maas, 69.

[25] Mango, 120.

[26] Maas, 69.

[27] Timothy E. Gregory, A History of Byzantium. Blackwell History of the Ancient World. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), 128.

[28] Gregory, 128.

[29] Gregory, 128.

[30] Gregory, 128.

[31] Rabun Taylor. “A Literary and Structural Analysis of the First Dome on Justinian’s Hagia Sophia, Constantinople.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 55, No. 1 (Mar., 1996): 66.

[32] Gregory, 130-31.

[33] Sarah Guberti Bassett. “The Antiquities in the Hippodrome of Constantinople,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 45 (1991): 87-88.

[34] Gregory, 65.

[35] Maas, 68.

[36] Albrecht Berger, “Streets and Public Spaces in Constantinople.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 54 (2000): 161.

[37] Berger, 161-162.

[38] Crow, 253.