A Feminist Critique of the Poor Status of Women in Classical Athens

A Feminist Critique of the Poor Status of Women in Classical Athens

Introduction

The question of the status of women in Classical Athens is a question steeped in academic controversy and a degree of relatively resolvable ambiguity.[1]  For some romanticising scholars, following a carefully selected range of sources, the status of women in Classical Athens wasn’t too oppressive and exclusionary.[2] However, scholars who have taken a broader, more rational and less romanticizing approach to the appraisal of the extant historical sources have arrived at the opposite conclusion – that women in classical Athens were fundamentally oppressed and lived just shy of what used to be called ‘oriental exclusion/seclusion’.[3] There appears to be far more merit to the latter conclusion – for if all of the sources are soberly examined and weighed, from the tragedies of Sophocles and Aeschylus to the comedies of Aristophanes and the works of the poetic reformer Solon, not to mention the oratory testimony of the Attic orators, the position of women in classical Athens seems to have been a very bleak and miserable one indeed.[4]  Empiricist historians would warn their fellow historians to forgo falling into the trappings of subjectivity, and hence would argue that one should not judge the misogyny and gender inequality of the Classical Athenians by the zeitgeist of our own time and culture, but subjectivity is an inescapable fact of historiography.[5]  One need only examine the disparate accounts of Alexander the Great given by W.W. Tarn and Ernst Badian to see that no matter how hard one tries to escape subjectivity, it finds its way into the account of even the most prudent and objective historian. Oral historians, on the other hand, have found a useful function for subjectivity, and in their efforts to defend their branch of history from the criticisms of documentary historians, have employed subjectivity to add new and enlightening dimensions to history.[6]

Although this essay will be dealing exclusively with documentary sources, a partially subjective approach will be taken in order to highlight the tragic lot of women in Classical Athens. Employing a partially subjective approach to the exposition of the poor status of women will yield results beyond the reach of both romanticising scholars and empiricist historians, whose faithful adherence to purely “objective” empiricism can possibly produce – namely – it will allow history to fulfil its most fundamental role as the wise old teacher who warns her children to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

 

The Rights of Women – From Dark Age Greece to Classical Greece

The Classical period is approximately a two-hundred-year period calculated by numerous scholars to have begun in the fifth century BCE.[7] Prior to the Classical period, archaic Greece, often referred to as the dark age of Greece,[8] was a markedly different society.[9]  Drawing upon archaeological evidence excavated from the Palace of Knossos, Hale notes:

‘If we look even further back in the Greek world, beyond the Classical period and the dark ages and into the Bronze Age world, we’re in an age where it’s very clear to us that women played a larger and freer role than in the Classical period’.[10]

The Classical period was marked by the rise of Greek democracy and the birth of city-states known as poleis,[11] and it has been argued by a number of scholars that the rise of both the city-state and Greek democracy were the unwitting co-conspirators which influenced an increase in the exclusion of women from the public sphere.  Cantarella remarks:

‘It was with the birth of the polis…that the situation changed and moved toward the path that led, in the classical period, to the total segregation of the female sex’.[12]

 Further, Pomeroy notes:

‘The curbing of the aristocrats by the democracy of the fifth-century B.C. entailed the repression of all women’.[13]

Citing Pomeroy, Biesecker argues that democracy assisted in the seclusion of women by shifting the emphasis from the family to the city-state, in which ‘the orator, legislator, general, and political leader exercised the most influence’,[14] as these roles were, particularly from the rise of the Classical period, the exclusive domain of man.[15]   The laws of the polis reinforced and codified this exclusion, forbidding women from participating in the political affairs of Athens.[16]

 

Biesecker’s Female Citizenship Hypothesis and Thoroughbred Heifers

Biesecker argues that the “progression” of female exclusion may not have been unidirectional – that is to say – it may have been subject to the ebbs and flows of “progressive” exclusion and halting contestation.[17] To support this hypothesis, Biesecker evinces a law institutionalized by Pericles in around 450 BCE. The law stated:

‘If a child was to be granted full rights to citizenship, not only the father, but also the mother had to be an Athenian citizen’.[18]

Biesecker interprets this law to imply the possible existence of a potential for a greater degree of equality between men and women via the vehicle of citizenship.[19] However, given the unbroken chain of the seclusion of women from the public sphere and the fact that the Athenians were quite xenophobic,[20] the requirement that a child be born of both an Athenian father and mother may be no more an indication of rights than those conferred upon female cows whose farmers desire high-quality calves from thoroughbred heifers. Put simply, requiring a female Athenian be the parent of child eligible for citizenship in no way imbued Athenian women with the same citizenship rights as Athenian men, nor even does it appear to have afforded them a reasonable opportunity to acquire such rights – it merely ensured that the child was of “pure” Athenian stock, which, as mentioned, may have reflected the pedantic nature of Athenian xenophobia, or possibly some other unknown political motivation.

As Biesecker confesses, and as the illuminating hindsight of historical testimony attests, this potentiality was never realized. But suppose it had, and suppose for a moment that an Athenian woman boldly sought to claim the same citizenship rights afforded to Athenian men. What, in all probability, would have been the result? It seems, given the sheer weight of the available historical testimony and the scholarly appraisals of said testimony, that such a woman would have been rebuked and her claim to rights roundly refuted at every turn. For, a large part of the Classical Athenian culture was steeped in superstition and religion, and these forces were, aside from some caveats that shall be dealt with shortly, misogyny-manufacturing machines. In Saint Augustine’s retelling of Varro’s retelling of a Classical Athenian myth concerning the naming of the city of Athens, Augustine writes:

‘At this [women winning the day for Athena/Minerva] Neptune being angry, overflowed all the Athenians’ lands…and to appease him, the Athenian women had a triple penalty set on their heads. First, they must never hereafter have a vote in council. Second, never hereafter be called Athenians: third, nor ever leave their name unto their children’.[21]

If the retelling of this charter myth is accurate,[22] then the ancient Athenians believed that the severe subjection of women was necessary to placate the anger and wrath of the god Neptune, which would not only make sense in the face of their overtly superstitious nature, but it would be yet another historical example in the annals of human history of myth-inspired misogyny.  It serves as a rather interesting irony, then, that the role of women in the religious rituals and ceremonies of Classical Athens has been used to advance the argument that they were attributed a relatively high status by Classical Athenian men.[23]

 

The Role of Women in Classical Athenian Religion

Women were prominent figures in the religious life of the Athenians in the Classical period.[24] However, as Pomeroy notes, the religious cult at Athens was subordinate to the polis, and the polis was exclusively in the hands of men.[25] Thus, although religion was an integral part of Athenian life, and even though women played an important role in this aspect of life, it remained an unfruitful avenue for the acquisition of real and tangible rights for women.  Discussing the matriarchal bias of Athenian religion and the curious disparity between women’s rights in religion versus their rights in general society, Hale says:

‘[There was] a strong matriarchal element in Minoan society with an emphasis on goddesses…It was very much a religion centred around women. And if we look at Classical Greek religion, we can see that that endured. Yes, the women are not typically visible on the streets, or in the markets. Yes, women do not attend the assembly. Women are not in Greek armies. But the religion was very much in the hands of those women’.[26]

The dominance of the polis over the predominantly matriarchal religion of the Athenians may well be a third culminating factor, besides the rise of democracy and the polis itself, which assisted the increase in the gender inequality that marred Athens in the Classical period.

 

The Oppression of Athenian Women

The marginalization of women in Classical Athens was, at least by modern Western standards, grave. They were forbidden from all of the crucial aspects of public life and this dramatic marginalization stripped them of not only the illustrious rights and status enjoyed by men, but it also thwarted any potential to achieve even a modicum of the rights afforded to their fathers, husbands, brothers and sons.  Women were denied formal education,[27] the right to vote,[28] the right to directly inherit and own property[29] – they were forbidden from retaining their children if their husbands divorced them or they divorced their husbands,[30] and on top of this grievous injustice, if divorced, they were forced to leave their (husband’s) home.[31] Should a woman have wished to divorce her husband there were numerous legal requirements that made the participation of men necessary for the success of such a desire, regardless of the circumstances.  However, if a husband wanted to divorce his wife, all he need have done is evict her.[32]  Pomeroy enunciates the oppressive bondage of women in Athens, remarking:

‘Citizen women were perpetually under the guardianship of a man, usually the father or, if he were dead, the male next-of-kin. Upon marriage a woman passed into the guardianship of her husband in most matters, with the important limitation that her father, or whoever else had given her in marriage, retained the right to dissolve the marriage’.[33]

 

The Disputed Status of Athenian “Women”  

Notwithstanding the arguments advanced above, it must be conceded that the issue of the status of Athenian women is still a matter of ongoing debate amongst scholars.[34] This debate, as prefaced in the introduction, is a matter hinged on which sources one wishes to place weight upon. A.W. Gomme, for example, established a precedent amongst romanticising scholars, to only observe the heroic depictions of women in Classical tragedies – like Antigone and Electra,[35] for example – and to assume, in blatant contradiction to the overwhelming literary evidence, that these highly-valued fictional females were mirror-images of the equally highly-valued real women of Athens.[36] Following in Gomme’s imprudent and starry-eyed footsteps, H.D.F. Kitto and Moses Hadas also relied heavily upon Greek tragedies, ignoring, for the most part, the vast tomes of contrary testimony from Attic orators, to paint a distorted and inaccurate picture of the status of women in Classical Greece.[37]  Kitto did, however, concede that ‘women were kept in a state of almost oriental seclusion’.[38]  With regards to this collection of scholars, Pomeroy argues:

‘Inspired by their admiration for the Athenians, they were reluctant to believe that the Athenians might not have treated their wives the way cultivated gentlemen in the twentieth century treat theirs’.[39]

Over and above the seemingly deliberate ignoring of Attic oratory testimony, which attested to the pathetic status of Athenian women,[40] the most egregious violation of historical scholarship committed by Gomme and his followers was the misunderstanding, or complete lack of understanding, of the conventions of Classical Greek tragedy.  Commenting on the discrepancy between Greek tragedy and Greek reality, Foley remarks:

‘From a generic perspective Greek drama does not directly reflect contemporary life but a remote, imaginary, and aristocratic world that often deliberately inverts or distorts the cultural norm…’[41]

Shaw reiterates this point, arguing:

‘…women in drama are all doing what women should not do…However, it is always clear in the drama that these are not foreign women acting normally but Athenian women acting abnormally, They are all, to borrow T. H. L Webster’s phrase, “bad women.”’[42]

For these reasons Lacey rejects the testimony of Greek tragedy and instead prefers the more reliable realm of evidence produced within the orations of Attic orators.[43] Lacey, although acknowledging the exclusion of Athenian women, offers a sort of apologia for their exclusion, arguing that their exclusion was for their own protection.[44] This type of argument, whether it contains any degree of practical merit or not, is reminiscent of the Saudi Arabian argument in favour of the exclusion and subjugation of women in modern Saudi Arabia, who are denied independence and basic human rights, and such inequality, apologists and relativists argue, is for their own protection.  In similitude to Lacey, Ehrenberg also prefers to paint a dark yet possibly more realistic picture of Classical Athenian women from the palette provided by Attic orators.[45]

F.A. Wright also evinced the testimony of Classical orators, and in his exposition of the wretched status of women in Athens, drew upon the orations of Demosthenes, who, in his oration Against Neaera, used the fact that she sat with her husband and his friends at dinner to expose her as a woman of “abandoned character”.[46]  Further, based on the more sober evidence from orators, Wright argues:

‘The doctrine that a wife is her husband’s property is applied to the fullest extent, and any offence against that property is punished with the utmost rigour of the law’.[47]

In fact, Wright went so far as to attribute the fall of Classical Greece to the poor status of women, saying:

‘The fact is – and it is as well to state it plainly – that the Greek world perished from one main cause, a low ideal of womanhood and a degradation of women which found expression both in literature and in social life’.[48]

It may not be too hard a task to argue that other factors may have also conspired in the downfall of Classical Greece, but one cannot help but appreciate the rationale and logic of Wright’s argument here. Women constitute around half of the population in any given society, and if that half has its hamstrings cut – if the society operates primarily upon the thoughts and actions of only fifty percent of its population, it would logically seem to be, that such a society would do half as well as those who employ the full intellectual and physical resources at their disposal.  This argument may well be vindicated by a recent 2011 study conducted by three economists, Doepke, Tertilt and Voena, which found a strong correlation between women’s rights and the economic prosperity of a society. In the study, the authors consider whether women’s rights lead to more prosperity within society or whether prosperity leads to an increase in women’s rights. Doepke, Tertilt and Voena conclude that there is sufficient evidence to substantiate the proposition that increasing the scope of women’s rights leads to an increase in the general economic affluence of a society.[49]

Despite Pomeroy’s impressive contributions to the modern feminist critique of Classical Athens, she has, to a minor degree, sought to temper her critique by way of the seemingly rational argument that women were not a single, definable group.[50]  Pomeroy argues that there were lower-class women, upper-class women, married women, virgins, etc – and as such, it is somewhat misleading to talk about the status of “women”.[51] Whilst this argument does contain a degree of merit, it falls short of mitigating the practical implications of the misogyny of the ancient Athenians, for the laws of the polis did not, as far as we may reasonably be made aware, distinguish between such categories. That is to say, the virgin was just as forbidden to vote as the married woman, and the upper-class woman was just as subject to the chauvinistic laws and slightly differentiated customs of the patriarchal polis as the lower-class woman, and so forth.

 

Conclusion

Although it is now a matter of relative certainty that Classical Athenian women did not live in what was once dubbed ‘oriental seclusion’, they were – at least according to the wealth of testimony from more reliable Attic orators – denied even the most basic rights afforded to men.  The infringement upon women’s rights appears to have increased as a result of Greece’s social shift from the dark ages to the Classical period, which was predominantly marked by the rise of democracy and the shift from a family-centred society to one that became increasingly centred around male-dominated poleis.  This increased split between the public and private sphere seems to have brought about the increased exclusion of women from the fundamental workings of Athenian society. Women were denied the kinds of education that would have allowed them to partake in the workings of the city-states, and subsequently, they were not allowed to vote, much less participate in politics. On top of these injustices, women were, by and large, mere chattels, through whom property and lineage could be transferred, but by whom nothing could be owned.

If Wright was right, then it was the misogyny of an irrational, self-defeating, and inferior moral constitution that led to the downfall of Classical Greece, which excluded and subjugated approximately half of its population upon logically indefensible grounds. Women were not equipped to join in the workings of the state because they were not afforded the means by which to do so, and with only half of the Athenian society able to participate in some of the most fundamental institutions of that society, their demise may well have always been an inevitability.  If such was in fact the case, then perhaps modern Islamic nations that continue to unapologetically and irrationally subjugate their women may do well to heed Wright’s warning and reform their misogynistic societies – if not for want of justice and morality, or even a sincere regard for the well-being of women, at least out of a selfish desire for self-preservation.

 

End Notes

  1. Sarah B. Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity, New York: Schocken Books, 1975, pp. 58-60.
  2. W. Gomme, The Position of Women in Athens in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries, ‘Classical Philology, Vol. 20.1’, (Jan. 1925), p. 4; Sarah B. Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity, New York: Schocken Books, 1975, p. 59.
  3. Roger Brock, The Labour of Women in Classical Athens, ‘The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 44.2’ (1994), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 345; Marilyn Katz, Ideology and “The Status of Women” in Ancient Greece, ‘History and Theory, Vol. 31.4: History and Feminist Theory’ (Dec. 1992), Wiley, p. 71; Marilyn A. Katz, Sappho and Her Sisters: Women in Ancient Greece, ‘Signs, Vol. 25.2’, (Winter 2,000), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 516.
  4. George Forest, Greece: The History of the Archaic Period, in: John Boardman (ed.), Jasper Griffin (ed.), Oswyn Murray (ed.), The Oxford History of the Classical World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986, pp. 19; Thorsten Fogen, Female Speech, in: Egbert J. Bakker (ed.), A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, pp. 312, 320, 324; F.A. Wright, Feminism in Greek Literature: From Homer to Aristotle, London: George Routledge and Sons, Ltd., 1923, p 1; B.M.W. Knox, Athenian Religion and Literature, in: D.M. Lewis (ed.), John Boardman (ed.), J.K. Davies (ed.), M. Ostwald (ed.), The Cambridge Ancient History Vol. 5: The Fifth Century B.C., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 269.
  5. Rebecca Sharpless, The History of Oral History, cited in: Thomas L. Charlton (ed.), Lois E. Myers (ed.), and Rebecca Sharpless, History of Oral History: Foundations and Methodology, Lanham: Altamira Press, 2007, p. 9.; Alistair Thomson, Making the Most of Memories: The Empirical and Subjective Value of Oral History, ‘Transactions of the Royal Historical Society9’, 1999, 292, cited at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3679406?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents, accessed on 10th Mar. 2016.
  6. Ibid; Professor Jeremy McInerney, Ph.D, Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Age, Lecture 4: Alexander – Myth and Reality, The Teaching Company, 2000.
  7. Oswyn Murray, Life and Society in Classical Greece, in: John Boardman (ed.), Jasper Griffin (ed.), Oswyn Murray (ed.), The Oxford History of Greece and the Hellenistic World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986, p. 240.
  8. M. Snodgrass, The Dark Age of Greece: An Archaeological Survey of the Eleventh to Eighth Centuries B.C., Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000, p. 1.
  9. Michael H. Crawford, David Whitehead, Archaic and Classical Greece: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, p. 152.
  10. Professor John R. Hale, PhD., Classical Archaeology of Ancient Greece and Rome, ‘Lecture 32: Women of Greece and Rome’, The Teaching Company, 2006.
  11. K. Davies, Democracy and Classical Greece, 2nd Ed., Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1978, pp. 25-26; James Whitely, The Archaeology of Ancient Greece, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 165.
  12. Eva Cantarella, Pandora’s Daughters: The Role and Status of Women in Greek and Roman Antiquity, Trans. Maureen B. Fant, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1987, pp. 39-40, cited in: Susan Biesecker, Rhetoric, Possibility, and Women’s Status in Ancient Athens: Gorgias’ and Isocrates’ Encomiums of Helen, ‘Rhetoric Society Quarterly’, Vol. 22, No. 1, Feminist Rereadings in the History of Rhetoric (Winter, 1992), Taylor & Francis Ltd., p. 99.
  13. Ibid. pp. 99-100.
  14. Ibid.
  15. Marylin B. Arthur, Early Greece: The Origins of the Western Attitude Toward Women, in: John Peradotto (ed.) and J.P. Sullivan (ed.), Women in the Ancient World: The Arethusa Papers, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984, p. 36.
  16. Roger Just, Women in Athenian Law and Life, London: Routledge, 1989, p. 9.
  17. Susan Biesecker, Rhetoric, Possibility, and Women’s Status in Ancient Athens: Gorgias’ and Isocrates’ Encomiums of Helen, ‘Rhetoric Society Quarterly’, Vol. 22, No. 1, Feminist Rereadings in the History of Rhetoric (Winter, 1992), Taylor & Francis Ltd., p. 100.
  18. Ibid. pp. 101-102.
  19. Ibid. p. 103.
  20. Joseph Jansen, Strangers Incorporated: Outsiders in Xenophon’s Poroi, in: Fiona Hobden (ed.) and Christopher Tuplin, Xenophon: Ethical Principles and Historical Enquiry, Leiden: Brill, 2012,  726; Arlene W. Saxonhouse, Fear of Diversity: The Birth of Political Science in Ancient Greek Thought, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992, p. 231; Edith Hall, The Sociology of Athenian Tragedy, in: P.E. Easterling, The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 93; Benjamin Isaac, The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004, pp. 119-120.
  21. Saint Augustine, The City of God, Vol. 2, trans. John Healy, Edinburgh: John Grant, 1909, p. 167.
  22. A ‘charter myth’ is a myth that justifies religious, social and cultural institutions and practices: Professor Elizabeth Vandiver, Classical Mythology, Lecture 2: What is Myth? The Teaching Company, 2002.
  23. Charles Seltman, The Status of Women in Athens, in: ‘Greece and Rome, Vol.2.3’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955, p. 119.
  24. Kurt A. Raaflaub, Democracy, in: Konrad H. Kinzl (ed.), A Companion to the Classical Greek World, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006, p. 407; Emily Kearns, Religious Practice and Belief, cited in: Ibid, p. 319.
  25. Sarah B. Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity, New York: Schocken Books, 1975, p. 75.
  26. Professor John R. Hale, PhD., Classical Archaeology of Ancient Greece and Rome, ‘Lecture 32: Women of Greece and Rome’, The Teaching Company, 2006.
  27. Sarah B. Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity, New York: Schocken Books, p. 74.
  28. D.F. Kitto, The Greeks, London: Penguin Books, 1951, p. 65.
  29. Sarah B. Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity, New York: Schocken Books, p. 61.
  30. Ibid. p. 65.
  31. Ibid. p. 64.
  32. Ibid. pp. 64-65.
  33. Ibid. p. 62.
  34. Ibid. pp. 58-60.
  35. Ibid. pp. 59-60.
  36. Ibid. p. 59.
  37. Ibid.
  38. Humphrey Davy Findley Kitto, The Greeks, London: Aldine Transaction Publishing, 1951, p. 233.
  39. Sarah B. Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity, New York: Schocken Books, p. 59.
  40. A. Wright, Feminism in Greek Literature: From Homer to Aristotle, London: George Routledge and Sons, Ltd., 1923, pp. 183-201.
  41. Helene P. Foley, Female Acts in Greek Tragedy, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001, p. 7.
  42. Michael Shaw, The Female Intruder: Women in Fifth Century Drama, ‘Classical Philology’, Vol. 70, 1975, p. 256.
  43. Sarah B. Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity, New York: Schocken Books, p. 59.
  44. Ibid.
  45. Ibid.
  46. A. Wright, Feminism in Greek Literature: From Homer to Aristotle, London: George Routledge and Sons, Ltd., 1923, p. 184.
  47. pp. 183-184.
  48. Ibid. p. 1.
  49. Matthias Doepke, Michele Tertilt, Alessandra Voena, The Economics and Politics of Women’s Rights, cited at: http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~mdo738/research/Doepke_Tertilt_Voena_1211.pdf, accessed on 27th March, 2016.
  50. Sarah B. Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity, New York: Schocken Books, p. 60.
  51. Ibid.

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

Ancient Sources

 

Saint Augustine, The City of God, Vol. 2, trans. John Healy, Edinburgh: John Grant, 1909.

 

Secondary Sources

 

Arthur, Marylin B., Early Greece: The Origins of the Western Attitude Toward Women, in: Peradotto, John (ed.) and Sullivan, J.P. (ed.), Women in the Ancient World: The Arethusa Papers, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984.

 

Biesecker, Susan, Rhetoric, Possibility, and Women’s Status in Ancient Athens: Gorgias’ and Isocrates’ Encomiums of Helen, ‘Rhetoric Society Quarterly’, Vol. 22, No. 1, Feminist Rereadings in the History of Rhetoric (Winter, 1992), Taylor & Francis Ltd.

 

Brock, Roger, The Labour of Women in Classical Athens, ‘The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 44.2’ (1994), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Cantarella, Eva, Pandora’s Daughters: The Role and Status of Women in Greek and Roman Antiquity, Trans. Maureen B. Fant, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1987.

 

Crawford, Michael H., Whitehead, David, Archaic and Classical Greece: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

 

Davies, J.K., Democracy and Classical Greece, 2nd Ed., Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1978.

 

Doepke, Matthias, Tertilt, Michele, Voena, Alessandra, The Economics and Politics of Women’s Rights, cited at: http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~mdo738/research/Doepke_Tertilt_Voena_1211.pdf, accessed on 27th March, 2016.

 

Fogen, Thorsten, Female Speech, in: Egbert J. Bakker (ed.), A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

 

Foley, Helene P., Female Acts in Greek Tragedy, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.

 

Forest, George, Greece: The History of the Archaic Period, in: Boardman, John (ed.), Griffin, Jasper (ed.), Murray, Oswyn (ed.), The Oxford History of the Classical World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.

 

Gomme, A.W., The Position of Women in Athens in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries, ‘Classical Philology, Vol. 20.1’, (Jan. 1925).

 

Hale, John R., Classical Archaeology of Ancient Greece and Rome, ‘Lecture 32: Women of Greece and Rome’, The Teaching Company, 2006.

 

Hall, Edith, The Sociology of Athenian Tragedy, in: Easterling, P.E., The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

 

Isaac, Benjamin, The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004.

 

Jansen, Joseph, Strangers Incorporated: Outsiders in Xenophon’s Poroi, in: Hobden, Fiona (ed.) and Tuplin, Christopher (ed.), Xenophon: Ethical Principles and Historical Enquiry, Leiden: Brill, 2012.

 

Just, Roger, Women in Athenian Law and Life, London: Routledge, 1989.

 

Katz, Marilyn, Ideology and “The Status of Women” in Ancient Greece, ‘History and Theory, Vol. 31.4: History and Feminist Theory’ (Dec. 1992), Wiley.

 

Katz, Marilyn A., Sappho and Her Sisters: Women in Ancient Greece, ‘Signs, Vol. 25.2’, (Winter 2,000), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

Kearns, Emily, Religious Practice and Belief, cited in: Kinzl, Konrad H. (ed.), A Companion to the Classical Greek World, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.

 

Kitto, H.D.F., The Greeks, London: Penguin Books, 1951.

 

Knox, B.M.W., Athenian Religion and Literature, in: Lewis, D.M. (ed.), Boardman, John (ed.), Davies, J.K. (ed.), Ostwald, M (ed.), The Cambridge Ancient History Vol. 5: The Fifth Century B.C., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

 

McInerney, Jeremy, Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Age, Lecture 4: Alexander – Myth and Reality, The Teaching Company, 2000.

 

Murray, Oswyn, Life and Society in Classical Greece, in: Boardman, John (ed.), Griffin, Jasper (ed.), Murray, Oswyn (ed.), The Oxford History of Greece and the Hellenistic World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.

 

Pomeroy, Sarah B., Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity, New York: Schocken Books, 1975.

 

Raaflaub, Kurt A., Democracy, in: Kinzl, Konrad H. (ed.), A Companion to the Classical Greek World, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.

 

Saxonhouse, Arlene W., Fear of Diversity: The Birth of Political Science in Ancient Greek Thought, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

 

Seltman, Charles, The Status of Women in Athens, in: ‘Greece and Rome, Vol.2.3’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955.

 

Sharpless, Rebecca, The History of Oral History, cited in: Thomas L. Charlton (ed.), Lois E. Myers (ed.), and Rebecca Sharpless, History of Oral History: Foundations and Methodology, Lanham: Altamira Press, 2007.

 

Shaw, Michael, The Female Intruder: Women in Fifth Century Drama, ‘Classical Philology’, Vol. 70, 1975.

 

Snodgrass, A.M., The Dark Age of Greece: An Archaeological Survey of the Eleventh to Eighth Centuries B.C., Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000.

 

 

Thomson, Alistair, Making the Most of Memories: The Empirical and Subjective Value of Oral History, ‘Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 9’, 1999, cited at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3679406?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents, accessed on 10th Mar. 2016.

 

Vandiver, Elizabeth, Classical Mythology, Lecture 2: What is Myth? The Teaching Company, 2002.

 

Whitely, James, The Archaeology of Ancient Greece, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

 

Wright, F.A., Feminism in Greek Literature: From Homer to Aristotle, London: George Routledge and Sons, Ltd., 1923.

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s