The laws and customs of Greece were if anything more repressive in their treatment of women, condemning all wives and daughters to a perpetual and suffocating protection.15 Respectable Greek women, effectively excluded from all public life, had few legal rights unless they acted with the full consent of their kurieia or male legal guardian. As a result, many upper-class women led unsatisfactory half-lives, closely confined within their own quarters where they spent long days working at the loom and supervising the household. Only in Sparta were young girls permitted to enjoy healthy exercise and positively encouraged not to spend too long at their weaving; this liberal behaviour was considered to be shockingly lax in ultra-conservative Athens. Under strict Athenian law women were effectively owned either by their father or by the husband who had been selected for them. Their dowries were at all times under the control of their husbands and they were neither allowed to inherit nor to make valid legal contracts. Their children became the property of the father and his family.
The Roman woman was also expected to behave with a becoming modesty, although she was permitted to enjoy a wider range of social activities than her Greek sister. It was quite acceptable for a Roman matron to dine with male guests, visit shops and temples and even play a restricted role in furthering her husband’s career, and indeed male Greek visitors to Rome were thrown into embarrassed confusion when first attending banquets at which the ladies of the household were also present. Despite this additional freedom, however, the Roman woman remained under her father’s legal control until she married, when her father had the option of transferring his guardianship to the new husband, thereby allowing the bride exactly the same legal rights as any daughter of the groom. If the father did not exercise this option he remained financially responsible for his daughter who was legally still a member of his household. Again the woman required the consent of her guardian in all formal legal matters, and again she was unable to act as the guardian of her children.
How did the unusually liberated women of Egypt develop and retain their equal legal status? This is an intriguing question which, as yet, has no entirely satisfactory answer. Early egyptologists, unduly influenced by the pioneering work of Frazer,16 felt that the legal freedom of the Egyptian women provided direct proof that the Egyptian system of government had evolved from a pure matriarchal system.17 This theory is now known to be totally false, and it seems likely that the answer must be sought in a consideration of the more unusual aspects of Egyptian culture. The legal subjugation of women in other societies seems to have been designed to ensure that women were denied the sexual freedom allowed to men, and thereby prevented from indiscriminate breeding. If this was a direct result of the need to provide a pure ruling élite and to restrict the dispersal of family assets, the unique position of the god-king and the absence of a strictly defined ‘citizen’ class made similar considerations irrelevant in Egypt. The rigid nature of the Egyptian class system and the traditional pattern of matchmaking meant that those assets which were held privately were unlikely to be dissipated on marriage, while the remarkable fertility of the Nile valley reduced the competition for access to resources
Fig. 5 Stela of the child Mery-Sekhmet shown in the arms of his unnamed mother
experienced in less fortunate societies. The recognition that descent could pass through both the female and the male lines, a characteristic of several African cultures, must also have been instrumental in protecting the rights of women. The Egyptians consistently regarded the female line as an important one, and mothers were frequently honoured in the tombs of their sons.
Their equal status allowed women full access to the legal system. Women were able to bring actions against fellow citizens and give valid evidence in court, and they were liable to be publicly tried for their crimes. Egyptian justice was based on a court or arbitration system. Both rich and poor were entitled to lodge formal complaints, and each legal case was considered purely on its own merits by a local magistrate. More important cases were heard before a specially convened tribunal or jury of fellow citizens while the vizier, who was in practice the head of the Egyptian judiciary, judged the most grave and complex issues himself. Although bribery of the officials was a recurrent problem, and those from powerful families often held undue influence over the courts, justice was theoretically available to all Egyptians regardless of sex or class. Ostraca recovered from Deir el-Medina indicate that women were, however, generally less likely to be involved in legal action than their menfolk, reflecting the fact that women played a less prominent role in public life. Those women who were forced to make a court appearance were more likely to be defendants than plaintiffs, and we have legal documents dealing with cases where women were tried for non-payment of debts, theft and even the neglect of a sick relative.