As has been briefly mentioned before, the demise of the traditional Greek polis culture (or, at least, of its political aspects) was connected to a re-evaluation of personal relationships: part of the effort that used to be directed at the outside world now went into private life. As far as marriage was concerned, there was a definite shift from contract to personal feelings, but whether this resulted in an improvement of the legal position of women is debatable. An ideology that advocates private life, romantic love, marriage, and the family is one thing, and genuine social change is another. However, most probably there was more to it than just ideology. It is highly likely that the powerful emotions expressed on gravestones for children and spouses were not just platitudes.
Because of this re-evaluation of marriage, women were much more visible within city life—this, at any rate, holds true for the women of the elite. Girls received a certain measure of education and were taken into account when cities established schools. But it is hard to say how fundamental such changes were. A few examples from Egypt (because of the papyri, most of our information on legal matters comes from Egypt) should not tempt us into speaking of a reversal of the social and legal position of women. As has been pointed out before, given its geographical dimensions and its time frame, it is dangerous to generalize about the Hellenistic period. Looking back to Classical times, we see an unmistakable continuity: the kurios was still a general phenomenon. In Egypt and elsewhere in the East, for instance, in Jewish circles, women acted independently, as they had always done in accordance with indigenous law. In these same areas, however, Greek women were still supposed to follow a kurios according to Greek rules of law.
The public activities of women from the elite have often been seen as an indication of fundamental change. Not only were they mentioned and honored together with their husbands, they also acted independently as benefactresses in religious positions, and, from the 1st century BC, also in non-religious ones. In the first three centuries of the Christian era, the number of women who held public positions and the variety of offices held by women would increase markedly. But what does this mean? It turns out that many of the offices held by women from the elite were of a ceremonial nature or were only nominally held by them. We do not find them in positions that involved “real” political authority, such as overseer of a market or ambassador, let alone member of the local council. What mattered most in all cases was the money they brought along: benefiting the community was the essence of every office held by a woman. This does imply, however, that the women in question had their
Own property at their disposal. Or should we say: were allowed to dispose of their property?
These developments are probably closely linked to a social structure in which the elite played an increasingly paternalistic role. Such paternalism presupposes maternalism: bringing the female members of local dynasties on to the stage is a natural consequence of thinking in terms of hereditary power and wealth. It does not mean they are a structural part of this power. This also holds true for Hellenistic princesses, who are said to have been role models for the ladies of the elite. The intriguing role women from the upper classes were allowed to play in public life meant they were more visible and had some freedom of movement. This is something new. But there was no genuine “emancipation of women” or a significant role for “women” in public life: in the Hellenistic period, most women remained as mute and powerless as before.
The sources present us with a very comparable image of Roman women. During the Republican period, Roman women, too, were completely subject to the authority of their fathers, their nearest male relatives, or their husbands. It is a Roman characteristic that in many cases the husband had considerably less authority over his wife than the woman’s father or her other male relatives, because in certain types of marriage the woman did not become part of her husband’s family. It has often been stated that as a result, these women achieved a certain measure of independence; this, however, is hard to determine. We find that in the 2nd century BC, women from the elite, the so-called matronae, moved more freely, because they could make use of the possibilities offered by the growing wealth of their families and by their own properties. In this respect, they undoubtedly followed the example of upper-class women in the Hellenistic cities and even that of Hellenistic princesses. Practical considerations also played a role: as the male members of the elite were frequently and for lengthy periods of time engaged in political and military activities abroad, women entered the public stage as representatives of their families. But in this case, too, this did not mean “emancipation,” not for the women of the elite, and certainly not for women from the lower classes. Behind the scenes, every woman, in her own way, may have had great influence; seen from the outside, she always remained in a dependent position.
World History
