Ambrose of Milan : One act is becoming to a man, another to a woman.… How unsightly it is for a man to act like a woman! — LETTER 78 Ambrosiaster : This is in line with Leviticus [19:27], which prohibits a man from having long hair. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL'S EPISTLES Augustine of Hippo : What is the reason, I wonder, why men wear their hair long contrary to the precept of the apostle? Is it to furnish greater leisure to the barbers? Or is it because they wish to imitate the birds of the gospel? Maybe they fear being plucked so that they might be unable to fly? I refrain from saying more concerning this habit, because of certain long-haired brothers whom, in almost all other respects, we hold in high esteem. But in proportion as we love them the more in Christ, to that degree do we advise them the more earnestly. — On the Work of Monks 31 Clement of Alexandria : The Word prohibits us from doing violence to nature by boring the lobes of the ears. For why not the nose too?-so that, what was spoken, may be fulfilled: "As an ear-ring in a swine's nose, so is beauty to a woman without discretion." For, in a word, if one thinks himself made beautiful by gold, he is inferior to gold; and he that is inferior to gold is not lord of it. But to confess one's self less ornamental than the Lydian ore, how monstrous! — The Instructor Book 3 John Chrysostom : "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor unto him?" "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given her for a covering." His constant practice of stating commonly received reasons he adopts also in this place, betaking himself to the common custom, and greatly abashing those who waited to be taught these things from him, which even from men's ordinary practice they might have learned. For such things are not unknown even to Barbarians: and see how he every where deals in piercing expressions: "every man praying having his head covered dishonoreth his head;" and again, "but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled:" and here again, "if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him; but if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her for a covering." "And if it be given her for a covering," say you, "wherefore need she add another covering?" That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection. For that thou oughtest to be covered nature herself by anticipation enacted a law. Add now, I pray, thine own part also, that thou mayest not seem to subvert the very laws of nature; a proof of most insolent rashness, to buffet not only with us, but with nature also. This is why God accusing the Jews said, "Thou hast slain thy sons and thy daughters: this is beyond all thy abominations." And again, Paul rebuking the unclean among the Romans thus aggravates the accusation, saying, that their usage was not only against the law of God, but even against nature. "For they changed the natural use into that which is against nature." For this cause then here also he employs this argument signifying this very thing, both that he is not enacting any strange law and that among Gentiles their inventions would all be reckoned as a kind of novelty against nature. So also Christ, implying the same, said, "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye also so them;" showing that He is not introducing any thing new. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 26 Tertullian : If you demand a divine law, you have that common one prevailing all over the world, written on the tablets of nature, to which also St. Paul is accustomed to appeal. Thus he says concerning the veiling of women: "Does not nature teach you this?" Again, in saying in his letter to the Romans that the Gentiles do by nature what the law prescribes, he hints at the existence of natural law and a nature founded on law. — THE CHAPLET 6.1 Tertullian : So completely has Paul by naming the sex generally, mingled "daughters" and species together in the genus. Again, while he says that "nature herself," which has assigned hair as a tegument and ornament to women, "teaches that veiling is the duty of females," has not the same tegument and the same honour of the head been assigned also to virgins? If "it is shameful" for a woman to be shorn it is similarly so to a virgin too. — On Prayer Tertullian : If, moreover, the apostle further adds the prejudgment of "nature," that redundancy of locks is an honour to a woman, because hair serves for a covering, of course it is most of all to a virgin that this is a distinction; for their very adornment properly consists in this, that, by being massed together upon the crown, it wholly covers the very citadel of the head with an encirclement of hair. — On the Veiling of Virgins Tertullian : If Scripture is uncertain, Nature is manifest; and concerning Nature's testimony Scripture cannot be uncertain. If there is a doubt about Nature, Discipline points out what is more sanctioned by God. — On the Veiling of Virgins