The Hellenistic Homemaker

Jocelyn B. Olson

Gender and Sexuality in Classical Antiquity

February 19, 2002

In both Xenophon’s Oeconomicus and Lysias’ defense of Euphiletus’ murder of Eratosthenes, insight into the purpose and function of Athenian marriage may be gained by examination of the speeches of two citizens about their wives and their homes. Through both texts, it becomes apparent that the citizen’s value of his wife is based upon his wife’s ability as an “oikonomikos” or “skilled household manager” (Strauss, 3). It is through filling this role as her husband’s housekeeper that an Athenian woman experienced a loss of personal freedom and found herself trapped within a marriage in which she had little contact or much in common with her husband. A woman’s role as oikonomikos is described by Euphiletus’ address of an Athenian citizen-jury and by Socrates’ discourse with Ischomachos, through which he strives to understand the best way by which a household may be managed.

An Athenian marriage was formed to unite a household, or “oikos”, with an overseer to manage it. This housekeeper was responsible for maintaining the wealth of the oikos, serving as manager over the servants of the oikos, and, by providing heirs, assuring that the oikos would continue to exist and grow in the future. Socrates believed that “…while the possessions usually come into the house through the man’s actions, they are expended for the most part in the course of the woman’s housekeeping; and when these things turn out well, the households increase…” (Xenophon, III.11). A good oikonomikos was essential for the proper function of the home.

Marriage existed as a business agreement between a husband and his in-laws, who negotiated it, and between a husband and his wife, who maintained it. The marriage was first arranged between the parents of a marriageable girl and the much older prospective husband. Ischomachos describes to Socrates how he explained the situation to his new wife: “That it was not for want of someone to spend the night with- this is obvious, I know to you too. Rather, when I considered for myself, and your parents for you, whom we might take as the best partner for the household and children, I chose you, and your parents, as it appears, from among the possibilities chose me” (Xenophon, VII.10-11). Indeed, the girl is looked upon as an employee of the husband and the oikos. Euphiletus states how “…in the beginning she was the best of women. She was a clever housewife, economical and exact in her management of everything” (Freeman, 44). For Euphiletus, his wife’s worth was based totally on her managerial skills.

Through Euphiletus and Socrates, the five requirements of a good oikonomikos come to be apparent. The first requirement is that a new wife be young, so that she might be taught by her new husband the ways to suit himself and his oikos perfectly. Socrates muses, “…it seems to me there are certain ages at which both horses and human beings are immediately useful as well as susceptible to improvement” (Xenophon, III.10). Next, the young wife must be uneducated so that she might be trained in just the way the husband wishes, and he will not suffer because of any incorrect training she may have acquired. Socrates is asked by Ischomachos “ ‘How, Socrates,’ he said, ‘could she have known anything when I took her, since she came to me when she was not yet fifteen, and had lived previously under diligent supervision in order that she might see and hear as little as possible and ask the fewest possible questions?” (Xenophon, VII.5). Ischomachos clearly took great pride in the plasticity and potential of his newlywed wife. The third requirement was that the new oikonomikos be fertile so that she might provide children as heirs for her husband and as caretakers for the husband and wife in their old age. Ischomachos relates to Socrates how he taught his wife why marriage came to be, so that “…the pair is brought together for the production of children; then, from this pairing is given to human beings at least to possess supporters in old age…” (Xenophon, VII.19). Fourthly, a wife must be submissive so that she is easily taught and unselfishly works for the good of the husband and oikos. Again, Ischomachos tells about a lesson he gives his wife: “ ‘Then what do you see,’ said my wife, ‘that I might do to help in increasing the household?’ ‘By Zeus,’ I said, ‘just try to do in the best manner possible what the gods have brought you forth to be capable of and what the law praises.’”(Xenophon, VII.16). The last requirement for a good oikonomikos is that she remain in the home in order to manage the wealth of the household and to orchestrate the servants who work there. Ischomachos gives even further instructions to his wife: “ ‘It will be necessary,’ I said, ‘for you to remain indoors and to send out those of the servants whose work is outside …” (Xenophon, VII.35). It is apparent that Ischomachos has a well-defined, strict, preconceived set of rules for how a wife will function in her new home.

These five requirements create loss of freedom for Athenian women. First of all, because of their youth they come into a marriage as children, and remain in it for the rest of their lives. They are not allowed to develop as individuals, and are trapped in marriage before they reach an age when they are able to make independent decisions. Secondly, they are uneducated, kept ignorant so that they know nothing except what their husbands tell them; this is shown when Socrates asks “Did you marry her when she was a very young girl and had seen and heard as little as possible?” and Kritoboulos, as the typical Athenian husband answers, “Yes, indeed” (Xenophon, III.13). In the pursuit of a blank slate, the girls were kept secluded in the home. Their seclusion was so complete that the husbands were regarded as responsible for all of their wives’ knowledge; as Socrates inquires: “…if he doesn’t teach the fine and good things but makes use of her though she is quite ignorant of them, wouldn’t the man justly be held at fault?” (Xenophon, III.11). Fertility further causes women to experience a loss of freedom, as responsibility for children ties them to the home. This characteristic of fertility also was the cause of restricted contact with people outside of a wife’s own oikos, because of the possibility that she might become impregnated by a stranger, causing the oikos to be inherited by a child who was not blood-related to the father. Euphiletus vehemently describes how adulterers would “by persuasion corrupt women’s minds, in such a way as to make other men’s wives more attached to themselves than to their husbands, so that the whole house is in their power…” (Freeman, 49). The ideal of submissiveness in a wife would also cause her to be within the power of her husband; not only would she be forced to obey him, but she would fear to show any signs of independence of her own accord, as these would label her as a bad woman and wife. Ischomachos’ wife displays such over-the-top submissiveness to her husband, asking “ ‘What can I do to help you?’ she said. “What is my capacity? But everything depends on you…’” (Xenophon, VII.16). She plays in this way to the image held by her husband of his wife as completely dependent on him for guidance. The final requirement of being an excellent oikonomikos, that of remaining in the home to manage the household affairs, adds also to limit her personal freedom by restricting her movement outside of the home. This was believed to have been ordained by the gods, because of the fact that women possess a less powerful body then men, which effectively “ordered her to the indoor works” (Xenophon, VII.32). Not only was she considered responsible for the goings-on of the home, she was also considered incapable of managing anything going on outside of it. The guidelines which described the ideal wife and manager, having the purpose of ensuring that an oikos is well run, result in producing a strictly defined mold from which a woman’s behavior is not allowed to deviate, and so severely restrict her personal freedom.

In the same way which the requirements to be a good oikonomikos can result in loss of freedom for the wife, the requirements also result in a loss of love. The characteristics which serve to make a good oikonomikos also serve to effect great distance between husband and wife. Distance is first brought about by the youth of the wife; as commented upon frequently by Socrates, there was an enormous age gap between husband and wife. Secondly, because the new wife arrives uneducated, it is difficult for the husband and wife to even speak together, and much more so to speak as equals. Ischomachos tells Socrates how he and his wife could not even have conversations at the onset of their marriage: “ ‘Well, Socrates,’ he said, ‘when she had gotten accustomed to me and had been domesticated to the extent that we could have discussions, I questioned her somewhat…’” (Xenophon, VII.10). The third requirement, fertility, serves to further shove the young wife into a different sphere than her husband when the children arrive; the woman is bound to the care of her children by what was believed to be a god-given “ greater affection for the newborn infants than [the god] gave to the man” (Xenophon VII.24). The characteristic of submissiveness puts a damper on intellectual rapport between husband and wife, as the husband is forced by custom and a superior age to take on the role of a teacher and the wife into that of an eager student. The value of an obedient wife comes through as Ischomachos praises his wife’s “high-mindedness” reflected in “instances of her obeying me quickly in some matter after hearing it only once” (Xenophon, X.1). Finally, that fact that she remains in the home creates distance between husband and wife simply because they occupy such different spheres. They hardly see each other; Ischomachos says as a matter-of-course, “I never spend time indoors. Indeed, my wife is quite capable by herself to manage the things within the house.” (Xenophon, VII.3) Indeed, by society it was looked upon as being shameful for a husband to spend time with his wife as she does her indoor works. For this reason, in Athenian households, like that of Euphiletus, the sexes were kept separate, described as “a small house which is divided into two- the men’s quarters and the women’s- each having the same space” (Freeman, 44). This separation was divinely ordained; as Ischomachos explains to the little woman: “ as we know what has been ordered to each of us by the god, we must, separately, do what’s appropriate to each” (Xenophon, VII.31). Love would be difficult to realize in such a relationship based totally on care of the home. As Euphiletus says to the jury members, “I came to trust her, and I handed all my possessions over to her, believing that this was the greatest possible proof of affection” (Freeman, 44). To the typical Athenian husband, love was replaced by an esteem for a job well done.

The role of Athenian women is well described through the requirements of being a good housekeeper- they must be young, uneducated, fertile, submissive, and remain in the home. In order to fill these roles well, Xenophon, in his Oeconomicos, and Lysias, through his defense of Euphiletus, show that women must necessarily experience a loss of freedom in order to maintain the virtues of an oikonomikos, and that also as a result of filling this house-manager role, they are so far removed from their husbands mentally and in daily experience because of age and custom, that romantic love would be inhibited.

Works Cited

Freeman, Kathleen. The Murder of Herodes and Other Trials from the Athenian Law

Courts. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. 1991.

Strauss, Leo. Xenophon’s Socratic Discourse: An Interpretation of the Oeconomicus.

Ithaca: Cornell University Press.