Greek society held the belief that women had little common sense or logic; they had the natural tendency to move toward chaos and destruction. Women were thought to have the ability to destroy a man’s honor through their actions. Because of this, women were given no influence in the government of the polis or in their lives; they had no power. Instead, they were kept inside where they could be closely monitored by their husbands, fathers, lovers or protectors. Yet, as seen in Kathleen Freeman’s translations of Athenian court trials The Murder of Herodes, women were able to acquire power in the household, the government, and for their own betterment through sexual relationships, marriage, and family ties.

Greek mythology painted a poor picture of women. This, in turn, created a society where the men believed that these myths were an accurate interpretation of the nature of women (or, possibly, vice-versa). Zeus created women as a punishment, and to this end, he made them so tempting that men could not resist them. But, he also made them a bane to men’s existence, where men had to marry them and constantly have to try to balance the good and the evil that inherently existed in their wives, or die alone. As a consequence of this bleak picture of women, Athenian men believed they had to keep a close eye on women and not allow them too much freedom; they had to keep them behind closed doors as much as possible so they could balance the good and evil and control their deceitful nature.

So how is it that women are supposed to acquire any power in their lives if all they have is their households? In fact, the first area in which a woman could gain power was the household. In a trial concerning the killing of an adulterer, the defendant Euphiletus gives an account as to what happens when a man and a woman marry:

As Euphiletus began to trust his wife, he gave her more control of the house, and eventually full run of the household. This is a source of power; the wife now has control of what goes in the families’ private sphere. The effects of letting women run the household can be numerous. The most powerful being the affect she will have on the rearing of her children. Essentially, the woman now has control of the environment in which her sons, and daughters, will grow. If the mother provides an environment where her sons grow to love and respect the women in their household (i.e. their mother and sisters), this could affect their way of thinking. When time comes for them to make a decision in a court case of a senate voting, they may have passing thoughts on how the women in their household would be effected, and may partially base their decisions on this thought. A mother could eventually affect her son’s role and vote in the government of the polis.

This is purely conjecture, however, and has no validity if Athenian men did not care about their mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters. Euphiletus shows us that men did have affection for their wives, but this does not prove that the affection ran as far as to effect the men’s thoughts in government affairs. There is the argument that, even though women had control of the private sphere, it was the man that had the final say in all the decision. Thus, a boy’s way of thinking would not be affected and no respect would be gained for women out of his upbringing. This, however, is proven wrong when, in a different trial, the prosecutor Apollodorus recounts that "when [Lysias and his lover] arrived, Lysias did not admit them to his house out of respect for his own wife, … and his own niece, and his own mother, who was somewhat advanced in years and lived in the same house." (Freeman, 197) Lysias had enough respect for the women in his house, including his mother, not to bring in a prostitute. This proves that there was some respect for women, including the mother, which in turn shows that the mother was able to exact some respect in the upbringing of her children.

In this same court trial that concerns the attempts of a non-citizen prostitute, Nearea, to pass her children as citizens, Apollodorus, the defendant, realizes that in order to win this case, he must prove that the defendant’s actions were wrong and should not be condoned. After attempting to prove this, he calls on the jury to make a just decision with this plea:

Athenian society was a shame-based society. People’s actions were derived upon whether it would bring shame to themselves or their family. Revenge was also exacted by bringing shame to another person, as is done by Apollodorus in this trial. As the passage shows, the woman was allowed to question the man upon his return home; men were in some way accountable to the women in their homes. Men were also subject to a woman’s anger, reproach, and shame for actions or decisions the woman felt were inappropriate or insulting. If this were not the case, then Apollodorus’ statement would have held no sway on the jury, and instead may have brought him jeers and laughter at the thought of women having any say in the voice of men.

Instead, Apollodorus was able to call on one of two emotions. He could either extract the respect that some men may have for the women in their house and their want for them to understand that he holds them in higher regard than prostitutes flaunting themselves at the law. Or, he could extract their fear of shame the men would suffer at the hands of their women. Thus, because husbands, fathers, and sons cared for their womenfolk, they inadvertently gave women some power over their behavior and responses. This change in behavior and response could then affect the results of juries and senate voting’s.

Women could also gain agency in their lives by association with men. For citizen women, this was accomplished though marrying a man, gaining his trust and adoration, and then gaining control of the household. For non-citizen women, this was not so easily accomplished, but could still be done. Neaera is an example of such non-citizen woman that, through her promiscuity and meager wealth, was able to give her life some stability. Initially, Neaera was a slave who was then sold to Timanorida and Eucrates. These two men eventually decided to marry and wanted to rid her from Corinth, where they lived, so their soon to be wives would not come in contact with Neaera. So, in return for her buying her freedom for a fraction of her cost, she would leave Corinth. Neaera saw this as her first opportunity to better her life, provided she could find the money. To raise the money, she called on her former lovers and was able to buy her freedom. Although she was now alone and had to find her own means of supporting herself, she was at least free, a step in the right direction.

Eventually, in her travels away form Corinth, she met Stephanus (a citizen of Athens), and he became her lover. Through this relationship, Neaera was able to convince him to become her protector in exchange for her love and the few bits of wealth she had. Now that she had a protector, she had representation in the courts if anything ever happened to her. This relationship also gave her a means of passing off her illegitimate, non-citizen children as citizens, all it required was saying that they were Stephanus’ children through a previous marriage to a citizen woman. And, because Stephanus had taken her into his home, she had some security and stability in her life. Nearea had the sense and power over other men to not only buy her freedom, but to enter into a relationship where she could have a stable house, representation in the courts, and the possibility of bettering her children’s lives. All this she did though her promiscuity and the little bit of money she had at any given moment. (Freeman, 191-226)

Greek society gave women very little freedom. They were given few avenues to acquire some sort of agency in their lives. Yet, through family ties, marriage and sexual relationships, women were able to gain representation in the Senate and juries. Finally, if the women chose to do so, they could use their sexuality and the little they owned to improve their lives and give themselves some sense of security and the possibility of improving their children’s lives.

Work Cited:

Although Athenian women were not given much agency in their lives, they were able to gain some power over their lives and in the government. This is accomplished, though control of the household to gain respect of the men, causing them to think of their wives, mothers, and daughters as they act in the political sphere. Also, non-citizen women were able to use their promiscuity to possibly attain not only freedom, but also stability through a citizen man that has become her protector. These two methods are shown though the speeches of defendants and prosecutors in Athenian court trial, as documented by Kathleen Freeman.