MARRIAGE AND WOMEN.
Love amongst the Greeks--Engagements--Marriage Rites and
Ceremonies--The Laconian Custom--Marriage in the Doric States--The
Mode of Life of the Athenian Women--Their Personal Habits--The
_Hetaerae_.
The boyhood of the young Athenian was occupied by school and play; his
youth was spent in gymnastic exercises, and sometimes also in scientific
studies and military labours. When he attained his majority as a
citizen, he acquired the right of exercising his political and civic
duties, taking part in popular assemblies and other public gatherings;
but apparently the young people did not make much use of these
privileges when they first entered on their political majority. Besides
these occupations there were many others to draw them away from serious
duties: pleasant intercourse with companions, drinking bouts, and also
the charms of pretty hetaerae, who were easily won to regard with favour
anyone possessing a tolerably well-filled purse. And this was all the
compensation they had for exclusion from the society of the daughters of
citizens; for, with the exception of the hetaerae, and the flute and
cithara players who performed at the banquets, women played no part in
social intercourse at Athens. There were but few occasions when the
girls left the close confinement of the women’s apartments for any kind
of publicity, and this custom, which resembled the Oriental, and was
probably introduced by the Ionic Greeks from Asia Minor, while the
Doric practice was very different, caused one of the greatest wants of
Attic life. This is brought forcibly before us in the comedies of the
fourth century, the so-called “New Attic Comedy,” in which the basis was
usually a love story, which our modern ideas would regard as purely
sensual, or even immoral; while love, in the best sense of the word, is
never represented. We must not, on this account, suppose that the Greeks
were entirely unacquainted with that kind of affection which is based on
real inclination, similarity of mind, and recognition of intellectual
virtues; in fact, the contrast often emphasised by poets and artists
between _Aphrodite Urania_, as the type of heavenly intellectual love,
and _Aphrodite Pandemos_, as that of sensuous love, must convince us of
the contrary; while Greek literature also supplies many examples of pure
love in the truest sense of the word, though a strong admixture of the
sensuous element was natural, even here, to a passionate southern race.
It was, however, quite unusual for such attachment to begin before
marriage, since opportunities for this were wanting. But often, in spite
of the conventional mode by which marriages were arranged, this
attachment was developed after marriage, and we must not fall into the
mistake of judging married life in Greece, or especially at Athens, only
from the greatly exaggerated descriptions of Aristophanes, or the
sarcastic tirades of misogynists like Euripides. The great majority of
the women were not so superficial or so quarrelsome as these poets have
represented them, nor the young men, as a rule, so vicious or hostile to
marriage as they are depicted in the majority of the New Attic Comedies.
It is true enough, of course, that marriage was usually a matter of
contract between the fathers or guardians of the young pair, and not the
consequence of affection between the youth and maiden; and this it is
which we see in the comedies of Plautus and Terence, who copied Greek
originals. Very often the fathers agreed to a marriage between their
children; sometimes the arrangements were made by a woman (προμνηστρία)
acquainted with the circumstances of the citizens’ families, who made a
kind of business of arranging marriages. An important point was equality
of fortune; of course, both parties had to be full citizens, but degrees
of relationship do not seem to have been any hindrance. The girl’s
consent was not asked at all; it was a matter of course that she should
accept the husband chosen by her parents, and, as she had no other male
acquaintances, objections can very seldom have been made. Generally she
was only acquainted with the husband destined for her by seeing him
hastily on her walks or at festivals. The destined bridegroom is more
likely to have made objections if the appointed bride did not please
him; yet here, too, as a rule, the father could have his way, since his
son was entirely in his power, unless it so happened that he earned his
own living by any profession, which was seldom the case among the better
classes. The fathers or guardians then concluded the contract of
engagement, in which the bride’s dowry was fixed and special
arrangements made for community of goods, return of the dowry in case of
a divorce, etc. The Homeric custom, by which it was the bridegroom who
brought gifts in order to win a bride, while the father gave his
daughter to the one who promised the richest bridal presents, had early
fallen into disuse, and probably even in the heroic period it was only
customary among noble families. In the historic period a dowry was
regarded as an indispensable basis for marriage: so much so that
daughters or sisters of poor citizens were often endowed at the expense
of generous friends, or poor orphan girls by their guardians; sometimes
the State even gave a dowry to the daughters of citizens who had
deserved well of their country. The engagement itself was, as a rule, a
legal act, which followed the private agreement between the fathers, and
was considered an essential preliminary to a legal marriage; it was not,
however, a general custom to celebrate this act in a social manner by a
banquet. As is usual in southern countries, the girls married very
young, sometimes even at the age of fifteen, or earlier; but the period
between their sixteenth and twentieth years was probably the usual one
for marriage. There seems to have been no distinct limit of age for men,
but probably the years between twenty and thirty were those in which
most of them entered the married state. We do not know how long a period
usually elapsed between the engagement and the marriage; probably there
was no definite custom, but we know that very often the wedding
immediately followed the engagement. We are likewise unable to say
whether, in the case of a long engagement, the bride and bridegroom had
any opportunities for meeting each other. The actual wedding usually
took place in the winter, and a favourite time was the month _Gamelion_
(the end of January and beginning of February), which hence received its
name. Certain days regarded as auspicious were generally chosen, and the
waning moon was specially avoided. It is curious, when we compare our
own and the Roman customs, to note that, though the wedding received a
religious character by sacrifices and other solemn ceremonies, it was
not of itself regarded as a religious or legal act. The legality of the
marriage depended on the engagement, and the religious consecration was
not given by a priest (who took no part, as a rule, in the wedding
ceremony), but by the marriage gods, who were invoked by prayer and
sacrifice, more especially Zeus and Hera, Apollo, Artemis, and Peitho,
the goddess of persuasion. We must now endeavour to form an idea of an
Athenian wedding ceremony, as described by Greek writers.
Among the ceremonies bearing a religious character which preceded the
wedding, an important part was played by the bath. Both bride and
bridegroom took a bath either on the morning of the wedding-day or the
day before, for which the water was brought from a river or from some
spring regarded as specially sacred, as at Athens the spring Callirhoe
(or Enneacrunos), at Thebes the Ismenus; and this water had to be
fetched by a boy who was some near relation; sometimes, however, we hear
of maidens sent to fetch it. The bride also offered libations and
gifts--as, for instance, her toys, locks of hair, and the like--to one
of the marriage goddesses. More important was the sacrifice generally
celebrated on the wedding-day, but we know few details about the mode of
its performance. It was offered to the marriage deities mentioned above,
either to all collectively or singly; the families of both bridegroom
and bride took part in the ceremony. We do not know of any special
directions as to the animals to be sacrificed; it appears to have been
the custom to remove the gall of the victim, and not burn it with the
rest of the inner parts, and this was supposed to indicate symbolically
that all bitterness must be absent from marriage.
Most sacrifices connected with the slaughtering of animals were followed
by a festive banquet, at which the flesh of the victims constituted the
principal dish, and thus the wedding sacrifice also was followed by a
feast, which was generally held at the house of the bride’s father. As
this must, according to custom, have taken place in the afternoon, we
may assume that the other wedding ceremonies had been performed in the
morning. The wedding banquet was one of the few occasions when men and
women dined together; this generally occurred only in most intimate
family circles, but not when guests were present. The luxury of these
wedding banquets seems to have increased so much that the State was at
last obliged to limit the number of guests by law. Plato would not have
allowed husband and wife to invite more than five friends and five
relations each--that is, twenty in all--on any occasion, whether a
wedding or otherwise; and a statute of the fourth century B.C. makes
thirty the maximum limit for weddings, and instructs the officials who
had charge of the women (γυναικόνομοι) to see that this rule is not
infringed; and they seem to have carried out their office so strictly
that on these occasions they often entered the house, counted the
guests, and turned out all who exceeded the legal number. At the
banquet, as well as at the sacrifice which preceded it, the bride
appeared in all her bridal adornments. Some female relation or friend
who took the part of a modern bridesmaid (νυμφευτρíα) undertook to deck
the bride and anoint her with costly essences, and dress her in clothes
of some fine, probably coloured, material, while special shoes, ribbons,
and flowers in the hair were regarded as important, as well as the veil,
which was the special mark of the bride, and covered the head, falling
low down and partly covering the face. The bridegroom, too, appeared in
a festive white dress, which differed from his ordinary clothing chiefly
by the fineness of material; he, too, wore a wreath, as did all the
other guests at the banquet; but special flowers, supposed to be of
fortunate omen, were worn by the bride and bridegroom. We do not hear of
any special dishes supplied at weddings, but cakes, to which the Greeks
assigned a symbolical connection with festive occasions, played an
important part, and in particular cakes of sesame found a place at the
wedding banquet. A special custom peculiar to Athens was for a boy, both
of whose parents must be alive, to go round wreathed with hawthorn or
acorns carrying a basket of cakes, singing, “I fled from misfortune, I
found a better lot.”
When the banquet was concluded, according to custom, by libation and
prayers, and the night began to set in, the bride was conducted home to
the house of the bridegroom. It was only among very poor people that the
bride went on foot in this procession; if it was at all possible, she
took her place between the bridegroom and the groomsman (παράνυμφος or
πáροχος), who was a near relation or intimate friend of the bridegroom,
in a carriage drawn by oxen or horses. All the other persons who took
part in the procession--that is, all who had been at the banquet, and
probably many others as well--went on foot behind the carriage to the
sound of harps and flutes, while one went on in front as leader. The
bride’s mother occupied the place of honour in the procession, carrying
in her hand the bridal torches, kindled at the family hearth, and thus
the bride took the sacred fire of her home to her new dwelling. On this
account the ancients represented the god of Marriage, Hymen, with a
torch as symbol. If other members of the procession also carried
torches, that was only in accordance with the custom of using them when
going out in the evening; it was only the torches of the bride’s mother
that had any symbolical meaning. Meantime the bride’s attendants sang a
bridal song, while the procession moved through the streets to the
bridegroom’s house. This song is called _Hymenaeus_, and the following
is found at the end of the Birds of Aristophanes:--
“Jupiter, that god sublime,
When the Fates in former time
Matched him with the Queen of Heaven
At a solemn banquet given,
Such a feast was held above,
And the charming god of Love,
Being present in command,
As a bridegroom took his stand
With the golden reins in hand.
Hymen, Hymen, Ho!”[B]
The bridegroom’s mother, also carrying torches, awaited the procession
by the bridegroom’s door, which was festively decked with wreaths. A
shower of all manner of sweetmeats was poured on the bridal pair, partly
in jest and partly to symbolise the rich blessing invoked upon them; nor
was the serious work forgotten which now awaited the young wife in her
new position: a pestle for bruising the corn grains was hung up near the
bridal chamber, to remind her of her duties as head of the household,
and it was an ancient Athenian custom for the bride herself to carry
some household implement in the procession, as, for instance, a sieve or
a vessel for roasting. Another symbolical custom, supposed also to date
from an ordinance of Solon, was for the bride, after her arrival in her
new home, to eat a quince, which, like the pomegranate, was supposed to
be a symbol of fruitfulness.
The bridegroom’s mother then attended the bridal pair to the _thalamus_
or bridal chamber, where the richly-decked, flower-strewn marriage couch
was prepared. When all the guests had gone away the bridegroom locked
the door, and while the bride unveiled herself to him for the first
time, the youths and maidens outside sang another song--either a few
verses of the Hymenaeus or an Epithalamium, accompanied with praises of
the married pair, and also doubtless by some jesting personal allusions.
The Epithalamium of Helen, in Theocritus, begins thus:--
“Slumberest so soon, sweet bridegroom?
Art thou over-fond of sleep?
Or hast thou leaden-weighted limbs?
Or hadst thou drunk too deep
When thou didst fling thee to thy lair?
Betimes thou shouldst have sped,
If sleep were all thy purpose,
Unto thy bachelor’s bed,
And left her in her mother’s arms
To nestle and to play,
A girl among her girlish mates,
Till deep into the day:--
For not alone for this night,
Nor for the next alone,
But through the days and through the years
Thou hast her for thine own.”
And it ends thus:--
“Sleep on, and love and longing
Breathe in each other’s breast;
But fail not, when the morn returns,
To rouse you from your rest:
With dawn shall we be stirring,
When, lifting high his fair
And feathered neck, the earliest bird
To clarion to the dawn is heard.
O God of brides and bridals,
Sing ‘Happy, happy pair!’”[C]
Very often the young men, before setting out homewards, amused
themselves by knocking and banging at the door of the bridal chamber,
though a friend of the bridegroom’s kept watch there, ostensibly to
prevent the maidens from going in to their married comrade. The last
lines of the above-quoted epithalamium show that the chorus sometimes
returned early next morning to greet the pair on their awakening.
On the morning after the wedding, the newly-married pair received visits
and congratulations from their relations and friends. The husband
presented his young wife with gifts, and so also did the visitors, but
this ceremony sometimes did not take place till the second day after the
wedding; for a curious custom existed (only at Athens, however) for the
husband on the day after the wedding to move into his father-in-law’s
house, and there spend a night apart from his wife; she then sent him a
new garment, whereupon he returned to her. With the wedding presents the
dowry was often presented, along with various objects belonging to the
trousseau, such as jars, ointments, sandals, toilette implements, etc.
The wedding festivities were then concluded by a banquet given either by
the bridegroom’s father in his house or by the bridegroom himself; but
it does not appear that there were any women present on this occasion.
Still, this banquet was of a certain importance for the young wife; at
Athens it was connected with her formal admission among the clansmen to
whom the bride now belonged by her marriage. Every tribe (φυλή) at
Athens was divided into three clans (φρáτραι), each of these into thirty
households (γένη); the members of the clans examined into the purity of
descent of citizens, and every new-born child had to be entered in their
register. This ceremony gave a sort of official, or at any rate public,
legitimation to the marriage.
[Illustration: FIG. 78.]
Among the monuments which have been preserved to us, there are several
which refer to marriage; but, as a rule, they adhere to a mythological
form, and do not represent a real scene from daily life. Thus, for
instance, we often see the bridal pair driving in a car, but those who
attend them are the Marriage gods in person, especially Apollo and
Artemis, and when the presentation of marriage gifts to the newly-wedded
pair is represented, it is usually the celebrated couple, Peleus and
Thetis, that we see depicted, while those who offer them the gifts are
gods, such as Hephaestus and the Horae, etc. The vase painting, which
is here given as Fig. 78, also bears a mythological character, though
it, no doubt, adheres very closely to the forms of reality. It
represents the arrival of the bride at the bridegroom’s house. The
latter stands leaning on a spear (which, however, must be an heroic
attribute, and not customary at marriages in the historic period) before
the door of his house. On the left comes the bride, who is recognised by
the veil covering her head. She approaches with a hesitating step, and
the bridesmaid attending her is pushing her gently forward with both
hands, while the groomsman, who goes before her, holds her left hand.
Apollo, with his laurel staff, and Artemis, with quiver and bow, are
gazing sympathetically at the bride; in front of them a woman, either
the match-maker or the bride’s mother, holds out both her arms to
welcome the bridegroom.
Of course, marriage customs differed considerably in the various Greek
states, as is proved by many allusions. Strangest of all seems the
Laconian custom, which points clearly to marriage by capture; a custom
of great antiquity, mentioned in many legends (as, for instance, that of
the Dioscuri and the daughters of Leucippus). No mention is made here of
a real marriage celebration; the bridegroom carried off his bride, who
must, however, have previously been betrothed to him by her father, from
her parents’ house, and in his own dwelling handed her over to the
charge of some middle-aged woman (νυμφευτρíα), who was either a relation
or an intimate friend. During his absence at the common dining table, to
which all Spartan citizens and youths went every day, this woman cut off
the bride’s hair, dressed her in male dress, with men’s shoes, and left
her lying in the dark on some straw. Then, when the bridegroom
returned, he unloosed the bride’s girdle and carried her in his arms to
the bridal chamber. Curiously enough, the appearance of secrecy was kept
up for some time longer; the young husband continued to live with the
other young citizens, and only visited his wife occasionally in secret.
Similar practices prevailed also at Crete. We do not, however, know how
long these strange customs continued in the Doric states.
In considering the position of women in relation to men and in the
household, we must allow for the differences between the heroic and
historic periods, and also between the Doric and the Ionic-Attic states.
Of the Aeolian states we know very little. In the heroic period, as far
as we can gather from the Homeric poems, women occupied an important
position, in many respects equal to that of the men. Heroic times, like
the rest of Greek antiquity, were only acquainted with monogamy;
polygamy is an entirely Oriental custom. Still, it was by no means
unusual in olden times for princes and nobles to have a number of
concubines, who were either slaves or female captives, besides their own
lawful wives, who were sprung of noble family. In fact, the idea of
conjugal fidelity held good only for the female portion of the
population, while the men were absolutely free to act as they pleased.
Undoubtedly there were cases in which husband and wife were so well
suited together that the men resisted all temptations to infidelity;
among these we may include Hector, Laertes, and Odysseus, in spite of
the amours of this last with Circe and Calypso. Whenever we obtain a
closer insight into the conditions of married life, as in the case of
Hector and Andromache, Odysseus and Penelope, the impression received is
a favourable one. There is even a vein of true affection perceptible,
which is generally absent from ancient conceptions of marriage.
In the heroic age women were chiefly occupied with household management
and female accomplishments, while they plied their tasks with their
attendants in the women’s apartments; but their life was not one of such
absolute retirement as that of the Oriental harems. On some occasions
they associated with men, and took part in their sacrifices and
banquets; and though they never went out unattended, yet a good deal of
liberty must have been allowed the young girls, to judge from the story
of Nausicaa, who went down to the sea-shore to wash the clothes.
In the historic age, the Doric states bear the closest analogy to heroic
times in their marriage customs. Here, too, we find the same undisguised
assumption that marriage existed for the sake of rearing children; and,
in fact, the laws of Lycurgus permitted a man to transfer his conjugal
rights for a time to another, if his childlessness imperilled the
existence of the family. In spite--or, perhaps, on account--of this
custom, infidelity was very rare at Sparta, even among the men, and the
institution of hetaerae never gained ground there. Concubinage, which
was very common in the heroic age, fell into disuse during historic
times, but, except at Sparta, it was really discontinued only in name.
The domestic relations between husband and wife more closely resembled
our own at Sparta than in the Ionic-Attic states. Even at Sparta the
household was the centre around which the woman’s life revolved, but she
was not degraded into a mere housekeeper; a Spartan addressed his wife
as “Mistress” (δέσποινα), made her the partner of his interests, and
consulted her about matters of importance. This seemed so strange to
the other Greek states that they were inclined to regard the Spartan
husbands as henpecked, which was by no means the case; but there is no
doubt that Spartan history can boast of far more remarkable women and
admirable mothers than Athenian. The strong patriotism of the Spartan
women which triumphed over gentler feelings is sometimes a little
unattractive to our modern sentiments, but, in any case, these women
command our fullest respect.
The position of women in the Ionic states bears a more Oriental
character, and here it is the wife who addresses the husband as
“Master.” The Athenian regarded his wife as a subordinate being, who
would bear him children and keep his house in order, but was incapable
of rising beyond this sphere. A woman must keep silence about all
political matters, and, as a rule, she was not even acquainted with her
husband’s private affairs. The husband was very seldom at home; public
life, professional duties, gymnastics, social intercourse, kept him from
his family during the greater part of the day; at meals they met
together, except when the husband had invited guests, and then the wife
had to withdraw into retirement. As a rule, husband and wife hardly knew
each other before marriage; it was not till afterwards that it was
possible to discover whether their characters were suited to one
another, and then it often turned out that these were quite
incompatible. Then they went their own ways, or else jarred and
quarrelled. Sometimes a sensible man succeeded in educating and raising
to his own level a really intelligent wife, to whom he could communicate
his plans and interests, and thus make her his partner in the true sense
of the word; but this was the exception, and, as a rule, the spheres of
husband and wife remained distinct. Moreover, the ever-increasing
influence of the hetaerae did much to loosen the bonds of marriage. It
was a very common thing for married men to visit hetaerae or enter into
love intrigues with slaves; and, as a rule, the wives shut their eyes to
it, so long as some regard was shown for appearances. If a married man
were to take an hetaera into his own house, that would be a ground of
divorce; but unmarried men very often kept mistresses, and the relation
between them sometimes closely resembled marriage. Supposing a man were
to neglect his own family too much through this intercourse, or, by
spending his money in this way, to inflict an injury on them, the wife,
if she possessed the full rights of citizenship, had the right to enter
a complaint. Improper language in the presence of women was not
permitted, and no stranger was allowed to enter the women’s apartments
during the absence of the husband. The children were bound to the most
absolute obedience and reverence to both father and mother.
Generally speaking, the law afforded a woman but little protection from
her husband; infidelity on his part did not entitle her to a divorce. On
the other hand, the strictest fidelity was required from the wife; but,
in spite of the seclusion in which she lived, infidelity was by no means
uncommon, since there were always plenty of obliging slaves ready to
help their mistress in these matters. In most Greek states the offenders
were punished by the loss of certain rights, and the husband was not
only justified in demanding a divorce, but even morally bound to do so
if his wife’s wrong-doing had been noised abroad. The law took no steps
to punish the lover; but the husband had the right to inflict corporal
punishment on him, or even, if he caught him in the act, to kill him,
unless, indeed, he preferred to seek compensation for his shame in a
money fine. In case of divorce, too, the woman was worse off than the
man. In consequence of the loose relation of the marriage-tie, it was
very easy to break it. A husband could dismiss his wife or send her back
to her parents, or the woman could simply leave her husband’s house, and
this was usually enough to annul the marriage. In the latter case the
wife was obliged to lodge a complaint against her husband in person with
the archon, as there were certain legal matters connected with the
divorce, chiefly concerning the dowry; as a rule, if the husband sent
away his wife without sufficient reason, he had to give back the dowry
to her or her legal representative (father, brother, or guardian),
unless the cause of the divorce was infidelity which had been clearly
proved against the wife. But though there is an appearance of justice
here, in reality the man had the advantage; for it was only the most
cogent reasons that would induce a woman voluntarily to leave her
husband, while the man often arbitrarily put away his wife for the most
trivial reasons; moreover, as a woman was always politically a minor,
and if she left her husband could not go on living by herself, she was
obliged to return to a state of tutelage under her father, or, if he
were no longer living, her brother or legal guardian. Many a woman would
rather endure the most cruel treatment from her husband than return thus
to her father’s house.
The life of Athenian women was entirely devoted to domestic affairs. The
part of the house set aside for the wife and children, and afterwards
for the grown-up daughters and the female slaves, was generally
separate from the rest of the dwelling; and a Greek writer says that, as
the door which separates the women’s apartments from the rest of the
house is the boundary set for a maiden, so the door which shuts the
house off from the street must be the boundary for the wife. We must
not, however, suppose that Greek women were entirely shut off from
publicity. The wives of poorer citizens, whose circumstances were, of
course, quite different from those of the upper classes, went out of
doors often enough. Some were compelled to do so by their occupation,
and others, who had few or no slaves at their disposal, were obliged to
go out every day to purchase food and other necessaries of life.
[Illustration: FIG. 79.]
It was very common for women to fetch water from the public wells, and
to have a little chat there; but in rich houses this duty of fetching
the water naturally fell to the slaves. We find allusions to these
expeditions to the well in legends and in real life; and they are often
represented on monuments, especially vase paintings. Fig. 79 gives an
example of the kind taken from a vase painting in the antique style. On
the left we see the well, surmounted by a Doric portico; the water is
flowing from a lion’s mouth into a jug (ύδρíα) placed beneath it; the
woman who has come to fill her vessel stands waiting beside it. On the
right we see other women conversing in pairs; two have already filled
their jars, and are carrying them on their heads, supported by a little
cushion, according to the pretty custom which still prevails widely in
the south; the vessels of the two others have not yet been filled, as we
can tell from their position.
Women of the better classes only went out attended by a servant or
slave, and then but seldom. A respectable woman stayed at home as much
as possible; in fact, the symbol of domestic life was a tortoise, a
creature which never leaves its house, and was regarded as an attribute
of Aphrodite Urania. In consequence, the women liked to linger by the
windows of the upper storey, the one generally used for their
apartments, in order to look down on the street, which afforded many
women the only entertainment and change they had in the day’s
occupations. There were no common meetings for them as there were for
men. They visited one another occasionally, and there were a few
festivals in the year to which they went without the men, and then the
proceedings seem to have been very lively, as for instance, at the
Thesmophoria. The women drove in their finest clothes to the Eleusinian
celebrations, and they also took part in the Panathenaea, on which
occasion the daughters of the resident foreigners (μέτοικοι) carried
their chairs and sunshades behind them. In general, it appears as though
more liberty had been gradually granted women in the matter of
appearance in public, though this liberty did not extend in Greece as
far as at Alexandria in the time of the Ptolemies, when Theocritus, in
one of his idylls, represents two citizens’ wives, attended by their
servants, penetrating into the densest crowd on the occasion of the
Festival of Adonis. The manifold contradictions which we find in the
ancient writers regarding the public appearance of women which have
called forth so many various opinions among the learned of the present
day, must be attributed in part to differences of period and, in part,
to differences of locality.
Notwithstanding this, everywhere and always in antiquity a woman’s
sphere was supposed to be the household, and when the family and the
number of slaves was large, this charge required a good deal of strength
and attention. Not only had all the food to be prepared for the
household, but also the clothing had to be provided for all its members;
for it was very unusual for any woman, who had numerous slaves at her
disposal, to purchase stuffs or clothes ready-made. They therefore spent
a great part of the day with their daughters and maids in a specially
appointed part of the house, where the looms were set up. Here, in the
first place, the wool, which was bought in a rough condition, was
prepared for working, by washing and beating, then fulled and carded,
disagreeable occupations which, on account of the exertion required,
were usually left to the maids. The wool thus prepared for working was
then put in large work-or spinning-baskets (κáλαθοι or τáλαροι),
[Illustration: FIG. 80.]
and we often see these on monuments which represent scenes from a
woman’s life. A statue of Penelope, the prototype of an industrious
woman, of which several replicas have come down to us, represents a
spinning-basket under her chair. The spinning-wheel was unknown to
antiquity, but the distaff and spindle were used exactly as they still
are in the south. (Compare the representation from a vase painting in
Fig. 80.) The woman here represented is seated
[Illustration: FIG. 81.]
(sometimes we find women walking or standing as they spin); she holds up
the distaff in her left hand; in front of her is a stand, on which wool
or flax seems to be fastened ready to fill the distaff afresh. For
weaving they used an upright loom of tolerably simple construction, but
yet suited for weaving heavy materials and elaborate patterns. Such an
one is represented on Fig. 81, from a vase picture of Penelope at the
loom. We can recognise on the already finished material, an ornamental
border and various figured patterns interwoven. The construction of the
loom is only superficially indicated, and has therefore been explained
in many different ways, into which we cannot at present enter. Fig. 82,
taken from a vase painting, represents a number of women, of whom some
are occupied with feminine work and others with their toilet. On the
left we see a woman holding a spinning-basket in her left hand; further
to the right a second woman is seated on an easy chair (καθέδρα),
holding an embroidery frame, on which a piece of material is stretched,
while a third woman stands near, watching her. Further to the right is a
fourth, who is drawing up the folds of her dress, and probably about to
fasten her girdle. The woman sitting next her on the easy chair holds an
object in front of her which is not quite distinct--possibly a mirror,
represented in profile, in which she is looking at herself; near her
stands a maid, holding in her right hand a pot of ointment, in the left
some undetermined object, perhaps a pin-cushion.
[Illustration: FIG. 82.]
The fulling of the woven materials was not undertaken at home, since it
was a difficult operation and required special arrangements; it was done
by the fuller, to whom any soiled cloth garments were also sent. Simple
woollen clothes, as well as linen garments, were, of course, washed at
home.
[Illustration: FIG. 83.]
The charming description in the “Odyssey” of Nausicaa, who goes with her
companions to the sea-shore to wash the clothes, is well known;
doubtless similar scenes might be seen in later times, even though no
king’s daughter took part in them, and no god-like hero alarmed the
maidens by his unexpected appearance. Fig. 83 represents a vase picture,
showing how an artist of the fifth century imagined that scene in
Phaeacia, according to the analogy of his own time. On the left side of
the picture, not represented here, stand Odysseus and Athene, and
several articles of clothing are hanging up to dry on the branches of a
tree; on the right, which is here represented, some girls are engaged in
hanging out the clothes. The finished, or newly-washed, clothes were
then carefully folded and laid in chests, since wardrobes for hanging up
dresses, such as we have, seem to have been unknown.
[Illustration: FIG. 84.]
The vase picture represented in Fig. 84 shows us two women occupied in
folding some kind of embroidered garment; on the left another woman is
turning round to look at them; on the floor stand a chair and a chest,
on the wall hang a mirror and a garment.
Notwithstanding these numerous domestic occupations, the women seem to
have had sufficient time to devote to their toilet. In spite of the few
opportunities they had of appearing elegantly dressed before strange
men, or their own friends, Greek women seem to have been no exception to
their sex
[Illustration: FIG. 85.]
in their fondness for dress and fine clothes. Considerable attention was
devoted to the care of the body. Washing and bathing were, of course,
very common. Scenes from the bath are often represented on monuments;
especially we often find in sculpture or painting representations of
Aphrodite, or some beautiful mortal, stooping down while a maid pours
water over her back from a jar. In the vase picture represented in Fig.
85, next to which a scene from the toilet is depicted, one woman is
pouring water into a basin, while another has disrobed, and is arranging
her hair before a mirror. We must suppose the locality of these scenes
to have been a special bathroom, which was always found in the better
class of houses on the lower storey.
The usual morning wash was performed in large basins standing on high
feet, or sometimes at the well itself, which was situated in the
courtyard of a house; women of the lower classes probably washed at one
of the public wells. On a picture representing the Judgment of Paris, of
which some figures are represented in Fig. 86, a vase painter naïvely
represents Athene thus performing her toilet before presenting herself
to the judge; she is holding both hands under the water flowing from the
fountain, evidently intending to wash her face; she has carefully drawn
her dress between her knees in order to keep the water from it. There
were also large public baths for women, but ancient authorities tell us
very little about their construction and use; still, notices here and
there in writing, or on monuments, enable us with certainty to assert
their existence. The vase painting, Fig. 87, gives a wonderfully vivid
picture of one of these public baths for women. It is a hall, supported
by Doric columns, covered to the height of
[Illustration: FIG. 86.]
[Illustration: FIG. 87.]
about a foot with water, which is always flowing fresh from the heads of
animals below the capitals of the pillars; probably the water was led
through the pipes passing from column to column, on which the women have
hung their clothes. The women, with their hair plaited in single braids
to prevent it getting wet, are standing under the douches and letting
the water pour over their head, back, arms, and legs, while they rub
themselves with their hands. We cannot tell whether women of the better
classes also went to these public baths; in any case, the middle
classes, who probably had no bathrooms of their own, formed the greater
part of the attendance.
Bathing was accompanied by anointing and rubbing with oils or other
fragrant essences; this, too, we often find represented on monuments,
where a lady herself makes use of a little oil-flask (λήκυθος), or an
attendant rubs her body with it. In fact, rich women always had a slave
who acted as lady’s-maid to help them at their toilet, and on the many
toilet scenes depicted on the Greek vases we seldom see women dressing
without assistance. Thus, in Fig. 88 (Frontis.), two women are helping a
third to dress; the mistress stands in the middle, and is about to
fasten her girdle, and, in order not to be hindered by the falling folds
of her chiton, she is holding the tip in her mouth; in front of her
stands an attendant holding a mirror; another woman standing behind her,
apparently rather a friend than a slave, holds a jewel casket in the
left hand, and with the right hands a pearl necklace taken from it to
the lady. On Attic _Stelai_ we very commonly find a lady represented
with her lady’s-maid and jewel casket. The use of the mirror is also a
favourite subject in works of art, especially connected with the
arrangement of the hair and veil Thus, in
[Illustration: FIG. 89.]
Fig. 86, we find that even Hera, before showing herself to Paris, finds
it necessary, with the help of her hand-mirror, to make some slight
alteration in her veil. A similar scene is depicted by the pretty
terra-cotta from Tanagra (Fig. 89). Fig. 90 represents
[Illustration: FIG. 90.]
a lady fully dressed, perhaps a bride, attended by two lady’s-maids, one
of whom holds an open jewel casket before her, in order that she may
choose something more out of it, in spite of the fact that she is so
carefully veiled that all ornament seems superfluous. Besides these
toilet scenes, Fig. 91 represents a vase picture giving other scenes
from the life of women, which, however, have not yet been clearly
interpreted. The woman represented here is seated on a chair, her right
leg is uncovered, and the foot is placed on a curious rest; in her hand
she holds a bandage, as though she intended to fasten it round her foot.
Another woman stands and looks on; a spinning-basket and a stool are
also included in the picture. It is impossible to say whether this
should also be regarded as a toilet scene.
[Illustration: FIG. 91.]
Greek women made use of many cosmetics for their toilet. They not only
anointed their bodies with fragrant essences and their hair with
sweet-scented oils and pomades, but the practice of rougeing was also a
very common one. The Spartan women, whose healthy complexions were
celebrated, probably made little use of it; but the ancient writers
supply sufficient testimony to its commonness at Athens. This practice
probably originated in the East, and its great popularity among the
women of the Ionic-Attic race is probably due to the fact that want of
fresh air and exercise gave them a pale, sickly complexion, and they
therefore considered it necessary to improve it artificially, though it
were only to please their own husbands. They supplied the tender
colouring of forehead and chin with white lead, the redness of their
cheeks with cinnabar, fucus, and bugloss, or other (usually vegetable)
dyes; there was a special flesh tint used for painting below the eyes.
The eyebrows were dyed with black paint, which was made of pine blacking
or pulverised antimony, and dyeing the hair was quite common as early as
the fifth century B.C., and by no means unusual even among men. The
rouge was put on either with the finger or a little brush. In vain the
poets, especially the comic writers, aimed the sharpest arrows of their
wit at this evil practice; in vain they described in drastic colours
how, in the heat of summer, two little black streams poured down from
the eyes over the face, while the red colour from the cheeks ran down to
the neck; and the hair falling over the forehead was dyed green by the
white lead. The best cure would doubtless have been found, if every man
had been as sensible as the young husband described in Xenophon’s story
alluded to above (p. 130), who cured his wife of rougeing by
representing to her the absurdity of this practice, showing her how
impossible it was for a woman to deceive her own husband in this way,
since the truth might come to light at any moment. He also advised his
wife not to spend the whole day in her room, but to move about the
house, superintend the servants’ work, help the housekeeper, and herself
lend a hand in kneading the dough, and other such occupations, while
supplying exercise for herself by shaking out and folding up the
clothes. Then she would have a better appetite for her meals, be in
better health, and naturally have a better complexion. But such sensible
husbands were rare, and probably all the women were not so obedient as
the wife of Ischomachus.
We do not intend to penetrate any further into the toilet mysteries of
Greek ladies, but, instead, will give our readers a representation of a
vase picture equally remarkable for fineness of drawing and variety in
the scenes represented. (Fig. 92.) It is the decoration of a lid of some
terra-cotta jar or box, and was probably used for cosmetic purposes.
Here we see a large number of girls, most of whom are occupied with
their toilet. In spite of the modesty of their dress and behaviour, it
does not seem probable that we are here obtaining an insight into a
family dwelling; the numerous little Cupids represented, and also the
presence of a young man, lead us to suppose that we see hetaerae before
us. The young man is leaning against the seat of a richly-clad lady, who
appears somewhat more matronly than the others; she holds an open jewel
casket in her hand, from which she is about to take some object. The
young man is leaning on a stick, at the end of which a Cupid is climbing
up in play. If we follow the view of L. Stephani, in regarding this
woman as the superintendent of the girls, he is probably right in his
further interpretation, that the youth has given the casket to this lady
in order to win her favour and access to the girls. To the left of this
group we find a girl holding a hand mirror before her, apparently about
to arrange her hair, as she is holding one hand up, but this might also
be interpreted as a gesture of pleased surprise at her
[Illustration: FIG. 92.]
appearance. Next to her is an attendant helping a girl arrange her
head-dress; both her hands are occupied with it, while the girl bends
her head a little forward, and in her hands already holds the necklace
which she is going to put on. Two Cupids stand beside her, one carrying
some indistinct object, perhaps a tympanum, the other apparently holding
two bracelets. On an easy-chair, under which appears a bird, perhaps a
duck, a girl is sitting holding an open casket, out of which a woman,
standing in front of her, has taken some fine material, or a veil,
which she is now unfolding. Between the two, on the ground stands an
incense-burner (θυμιατήριον), next a Cupid holding an oil-flask in his
hands. A richly-dressed woman leans against a terminal figure of the
bearded Dionysus, bending a branch into a wreath with both hands; in
front stands a dog, looking up at her. Further to the left a girl is
sitting on a stool, while an attendant is arranging her hair; she has
placed both hands on her knees, and is sitting quite quietly while the
other, to judge from the posture of her left hand, appears to be saying
something to her; the Cupid, kneeling on the ground, is fastening the
sandals of the seated girl; an incense-burner stands beside them. Next
them stands a woman with richly-dressed hair; her right hand hangs down
and holds a mirror; at her feet is some object whose meaning is not
clear. Still further we see a little table on three goat-shaped feet, at
which two girls are sitting opposite one another, one on an easy-chair,
the other on a simpler seat; under the easy-chair is a cage with a
little bird. We cannot determine the occupation of the girls who have
placed their hands on the table, while one of them holds some indistinct
object in her left hand--probably they are playing some game; above them
hovers a Cupid with a wreath of leaves; near him we observe a
beautifully ornamented little chest. The last of these female figures
stands in front of a washing basin, in which she has placed both hands,
probably to wash them, rather than, as Stephani supposes, in order to
wash some object in the basin; for a domestic occupation such as the
washing of any garment would not be appropriate to the rest of the
scenes. On the ground stands a beautifully-shaped water-jar.
It would not be easy to pass judgment on Greek women in general, as
differences of race have considerable influence. Nor can we place much
confidence in our literary authorities, least of all in Aristophanes,
who says in the _Thesmophoriazusae_ that the men could place no trust
whatever in their wives, and were obliged to keep them under lock and
key, and keep Molossian hounds on purpose to frighten away their lovers,
while they deprived them even of the keys of the storeroom. This is, of
course, exaggerated invention, as is also the statement that all the
suspicion of the women is due to the calumnies of Euripides. The poets
of the Old Comedy directed the arrows of their wit only at women of ill
fame; and the Newer Attic Comedy chooses most of its heroines from among
the hetaerae (though a favourite _dénoûment_ was the discovery that
these were really long-lost legitimate daughters of citizens); and
consequently the women are generally treated from their worst side, and
the men represented as poor victims. The aim of comedy, which is to
provoke laughter, is more easily attained by the representation of
characters whose morality is not unimpeachable; and it would be equally
unfair in our own time to form a picture of modern morals based on the
representations of the stage. Undoubtedly, the Athenian women were far
inferior to the Spartan in morality, and in some towns--especially
Corinth and Byzantium--female morality seems to have been at a very low
ebb; but we must not on that account condemn all Greek women
indiscriminately. One reproach is too often heard, and too clearly
proved to be discredited, and that is inclination to drink. This vice
was so common that in some places women were actually forbidden to drink
wine, and it was this that sometimes compelled husbands to take the keys
from their wives.
We cannot close this section without a word on that class of women who
sold their favours to any who would pay the price for them. The Greeks
euphemistically called these hetaerae (ἑταῖραι), female companions. They
seem to have been unknown in the heroic age, but in historic times they
were found almost everywhere, and association with them was so common
that it was hardly a cause of reproach even to married men. The law
regarded their existence as not only a matter of course, but even as
necessary, and the State promoted the establishment of houses for them.
There were many such at all the ports, and many large manufacturing or
trading cities, such as Corinth, obtained a distinct reputation on this
account; though at the same time it was often said that a stay there was
both dangerous and expensive. Besides these public establishments, the
visitors to which paid a fixed entrance fee, the amount of which varied
according to the elegance of the house, there were also private
establishments of a somewhat different character. These were kept by a
man or woman, sometimes an old hetaera, whose property the girls in the
house became, by being bought direct as slaves or obtained in some other
way. Many of these poor girls had been exposed in their infancy, and
brought up by the owners of these houses, who repaid themselves for the
cost of nurture by the income thus brought in. Such girls were often the
heroines of comedies, and in the end were happily united to their
lovers. The flute-girls, who played at the symposia, were also often
kept in such houses, and their owners not only provided rich and elegant
clothing, but also spent much money on their education, and especially
on the training of their musical talents, which enabled them to earn
higher pay.
But far the greater part of the hetaerae lived alone, and every large
town possessed a number of these women, who were classed in different
grades according to their education. Some of them were rich women,
owning large numbers of slaves; their fame spread through the whole of
Greece, and their rooms were crowded by men of the first rank in
politics, literature, and art; great artists vied in representing them
in bronze and marble, and their fame has descended even to our own
times. Among all these, the most celebrated was the older Aspasia, the
friend of Pericles, a woman of the highest intellectual endowments and
most cultivated taste, who attracted men rather by the power of her
intellect than of her charms. Other celebrated hetaerae, such as Laïs
and Phryne, owe their renown, which has descended even to the present
day, chiefly to their extraordinary beauty and the numerous anecdotes
current about their life and also about their greed for money, and
shameless character. These hetaerae, who thus lived by themselves, were
either freed women or foreigners; some of them are not unattractive
characters, whose wit and grace may easily have attracted even men of
note, while others were mere courtesans, covetous, superficial, and
dress-loving.
In order to understand the possibility of their social intercourse with
men of unblemished reputation, and the fact that these girls played a
part in Greek literature almost more important than that of honest
women, we must bear in mind the slight education and retired life of the
Greek women. Even this can hardly account for the permission granted to
a hetaera like Phryne to dedicate her statue by Praxiteles at Delphi, or
her venturing to bathe in the sea, completely naked, like an Aphrodite
Anadyomene, in the presence of numerous admiring spectators. We can
only explain this by remembering the intense Hellenic love of beauty,
apart from the considerations of morality, which looked on a beautiful
human body as a divine work demanding adoration, which made it possible
to forget the moral weaknesses inherent in it. At Corinth, in the temple
of Aphrodite, more than a thousand temple slaves (ίερόδουλοι) were
maintained, who were regarded as in the service of the goddess, and this
conception of love as worship was very common throughout the East. But
although much was openly done in ancient times which would be concealed
at the present day, it would be a mistake to suppose that the position
occupied by these women was a really honourable one.
Although there was no official control kept over them, yet they were not
left absolutely free; in most towns they had to pay a tax to the State.
Later writers have maintained, but with what accuracy is uncertain, that
a special dress was prescribed for them; probably they were only
distinguished from other women by conspicuous bright clothing and more
elaborate dress. The legal protection generally accorded to women in
case of wrongful treatment, could naturally not be claimed by them, and
a hetaera who had a child could not claim from its father money for its
support. In fact, the lot of the majority was at best but gilded misery,
and many ended their days in extreme poverty.
Greek art is very rich in scenes from the life of hetaerae; many have
been already represented here (compare Figs. 17 and 92), and others will
follow. We must face the fact that the very period which is renowned in
Greek literature and art as that of the greatest splendour, was a time,
also, of moral rottenness. Where there is much light we must expect
much shade; and in modern art, too, the highest development of painting
and sculpture was contemporaneous with the religious and moral
degeneracy of the Middle ages; indeed, the Rome of Alexander VI. and Leo
X. was probably far more immoral than the Athens of Pericles.