Women’s Role in
Hellenistic Times
The common woman’s role within Hellenistic society was extremely inferior to the role that men played. Compared to other periods of history, the role of common middle class women during the Hellenistic time period is hard to define. It is most clearly defined in the papyri recording their marriages. The marriage document is one of the only sources that can tell historians what life was like for the common women. Of course, depending on location and time period, each lifestyle varies a little bit, but one thing remains constant; common women lived in the shadow of their husbands.
Women were seen
as subservient to men. There were boundaries set upon them that dealt with their
interactions with men publicly, privately, domestically and politically,
(Burton, 41). In the book Women and Society, it was noted that women had
little legal independence and were expected to be under the control of their
fathers and then their husbands throughout their life, (Rowlandson, 162). This
was accomplished by the need to give women legal guardians before they married.
The guardian was usually the woman’s father. If the father had passed on
already then the brother or oldest living male relative took the place
of guardian. The guardian played an essential role when it came time to writing
out the marriage contract. Greek law states that women were not able to sign
contracts, not even personal documents such as the marriage document, (Pomeroy,
89). The woman’s guardian would sign in her place and the groom would sign in his
own respective area, (Pomeroy, 89). Marriage contracts were written on sheets of
papyrus and usually they were used in the ritual of marriage by the citizens of the Greek cities of Ptolemais, Naucratis and other medium sized Greek
settlements scattered throughout Egypt, (Pomeroy, 83).
The marriage contract was a legally binding contract that mapped out all
of the couple’s expectations of the marriage.
An
example of what type of expectations that were agreed upon within the papyri can
be found when reading P. Elephantine 1=Chrest. Milt. I 283= Select Papyri. This
is a marriage contract between a man and a woman, although the woman is never
mentioned in it as making any decisions. In her place, her guardian who is her
father is named. The bride and groom did not decide on where they would live and
spend their life together. In the bride’s place her father decided alongside
of the groom, (Pomeroy, 86). Later on, the papyri states that if the woman shall
bring any shame or dishonor to her husband during the marriage and the
husband can prove this dishonor to a panel of 3 men. Then the woman would loose
all of her possessions that she brought into the marriage, (Pomeroy, 86).
The
papyri are the only ancient sources that show the extreme difference in
treatment of the men and women within marriage. Sex roles were defined in the
papyri and women were expected to function in different spheres than the men,
(Pomeroy, 83). Sirach wrote about the need to keep the wife at home in order to
keep patrilineage from interfering, (King,
271). Women were responsible for keeping their lusty daughters under control and
to keep the men from looking at other women, (King, 271). Although it was not
expected for men to be sexually monogamous, they were expected to keep their
other women away from their house and their children, (Pomeroy, 95-96). Men
would most likely have their affairs when they traveled, and it was known that
men were allowed to travel freely during the duration of their marriage without
going against the marriage contract, (Pomeroy, 97). It was forbidden for women
to travel without the permission of their husbands. This was because their job
of taking care of the household could not be complete with them away from the
house, (Pomeroy, 97). Not allowing a woman to travel without her husband’s
approval was also a way to make sure that the woman wouldn’t have a chance to
be unfaithful to her husband, (Pomeroy, 97). The husband was seen as providers
for his wife. He would provide only what was suitable for a woman of her status,
(Pomeroy, 93). This meant that unless she was a woman from an elitist
background, her clothing would be the bare minimal and usually made out of
decade-old cloth that could stand the test of time, (Pomeroy, 94). On the
opposite side of status, women who came from a higher status would be dressed in
the latest fashion and it would be expected that their husbands would provide
them with such clothing, (Pomeroy, 94). Sirach says, “Better a man’s spite
than a woman’s kindness; women give rise to shame and reproach”, (King,
272). She thought that a woman’s role within the family was to keep the
husband happy, even if that meant to reinforce a bad quality such as spite than
to work on her own endearing qualities such as kindness. Home was an important
aspect for women of this time period just as it was for most women during most
time periods. Their home and family life directly reflected the woman and how
well she was doing her job. This idea isn’t too different from the 19th
century of our own history.
In Joan Burton’s book, Theocritus’s Urban Mimes, she notes
that public life expanded for women with the arrival of strong queens such as
Olympias and Arsinoe II, since they were becoming more visible to the common
women of the cities during this time (Burton, 41). This in turn results in the
strong possibility for social roles for less elite women because of their new
visibility of the social roles that the elite women hold. These roles
would not have been much, though, since women were not allowed to take part in public politics,
and were not allowed to hold military office, (Burton, 63). Gaining power for a
non-elitist man was even more difficult. How were common women supposed to
accomplish the same feat? Traditionally in the Ancient Greek world, men attained
power through physical force and public political activity, (Burton, 62), both
of which women were banned from taking part in. It is clear that the strong visibility of Queens only gave
common women a source of someone to idealize mainly because the common women
would never be able to attain the level of respect that queens have come to know (Burton, 63). The Queens such as
Olympias and Arsinoe II, were the models
of feminine power. This was especially true within Egypt, where women were known
to have gender equality, at least more than other places during this time period (Burton, 63). Arsinoe II and Olympus were on their way to changing the
mode of gender behavior for women in the elite positions, but this did not do
much for the common women stuck watching the queens aching to be a part of that
life.
Claudia Camp claims that the idealization of female imagery does not
always support women’s equality, (King, 271). She feels that the increased
visibility of these queens was not doing any good for the common woman. In fact
the inverse was happening, and the increase in the idealization of the queens
resulted in the role of common women being less powerful. This is the result of elevation
of one social class and it can be used to suppress another, (King, 272).
In this case the queens have been put on such a high pedestal that they
are just pushing the common women down further with every step they take up.
Common women of this time period were not able to make a
significant social role for themselves. They were just left with the role of
devoted and suppressed wife. This was all in result of their lower class and
gender status. Their first priorities were to their husbands and they were
expected to not only remain faithful to their duties, but obey their marriage
contract. In retrospect they were obeying a document that was full of double
standards to the man’s favor. Women were key to the survival of the everyday
life of families and communities within the Hellenistic time period. Although
they did not receive any praise at the time and their work is barely documented,
what little is known shows that women did a lot of work for very little in
return. Those are the people that make the commoners' villages work and are
the backbones of their societies. Even if they had restrictions put upon them
and had men to answer to all of their lives, their work made a difference. The
difference may not be seen in the royalty of the time or the military forces,
but they are noticed by the families they raised, with or without the help of
their husbands.
To read more on women in the Hellenistic Era, check out Blythe Dawson's argument: