Synthesis Part II

1The second part deals with the question of actual power of women: Did they actively exercise political power or influence political decisions and debates? Which role did they play? And to what extent did their role empower them? And last but not least: What was the basis for their actions?

2Generally the principles of our discussion are well known: the exercise of power and sovereignty was no preserve of women. The prevalent definition of gender in antiquity dictated differing roles for the sexes. As a rule, politics and public life were reserved for men and were thus defined and perceived as male spheres.1

3However, women are occasionally portrayed as agents by our sources. To some extent they thus serve as a projection surface of male interests and as a means of display of male attributes. In this way the women’s active exercise of power constitutes a transgression of their natural role models. The sources portray them as overstepping the boundary to the male domain. This reflects badly on their spouses (or sons or brothers), who in turn are depicted as weak and not in control of their women and their political affairs.

4Nevertheless, we can still track these women’s pursuit of autonomous activities and purposes, most notably in the Hellenistic and Roman (aristocratic and imperial) dynasties. They occupied influential positions at the side of their men–be it as spouse, mother or sister–which enabled them to influence or even precipitate political decisions. Some even exercised power in lieu of their under-age sons or deceased husbands.

5Besides their proximity to important men, other resources gave women the chance to exercise of power and political influence in a wider sense, i.e. apart from state leadership: Family relationships and influential affiliations within the aristocracy, abundant economic resources or high social renown of their own enabled a few women to attain ample opportunities to far reaching political influence.

6The contributions of this second part reflect on these principles and bases of the exercise of power. Their focus lies on certain women’s autonomous courses of action as they approach different issues.

7Firstly and mainly, it is their active political role or their exertion of influence in different matters: Women’s measures in this domain range from representing the head of state (in Hellenistic dynasties)2 through to amending laws and decrees of the senate.3 Often combined with this active role are the women’s public appearances and utterances.4

8Most important is their role as arbiters and intermediaries primarily in order to further the political goals of men or, to a lesser extent, of their own5. Therefore they sometimes seem to establish a connection to the army. Yet, family relationships and the women’s fortunes are their main instruments of power.

9With reference to these broad outlines, the individual chapters will be characterized in greater detail.

10To the Hellenistic world belong the Ptolemaic queens, whose activities have been studied by A. Bielman Sánchez and G. Lenzo. Using the examples of Cleopatra I (queen between 194/3?-177/6 B.C.) and Cleopatra II (queen between 175-115 B.C.) they show that in this epoch the Egyptian state was, as a novelty, headed by women who were themselves, in their role as queens, fully capable of acting. Thus, Cleopatra I governed from 180 to autumn/winter 177 as coregent together with her under-age son Ptolemy VI. Her title and epithet found in the official minutes disclose her status as queen. Cleopatra II, her daughter, governed Egypt together with her brothers Ptolemy VI and Ptolemy VIII from 170 to 115. She even ruled with absolute power during the civil wars from 132 to 127–a rule that was recognised in Alexandria and several other cities. Her active policies are primarily attested by the so-called “ordonnances”, official answers to enquiries from the public and the administration she issued together with the king. The power base of the queens can be identified with their familial and extra-familial relationships as well as their fortunes. Appearances and utterances of queens mainly took place in the royal palace in front of officials of the court and chancery. They were also present at public audiences. Nevertheless, statements of queens are attested only indirectly, while their broader public context cannot be reconstructed.

11Despite her active politics, Cleopatra is thus only presented in a passive role. Her connection to the army, the power base of the Ptolemies, can be deduced only indirectly on the basis of honours awarded besides the king in the gymnasium as well as her exertion of influence on occasion of the institution of a new governor of Cyprus.

12Late republican Rome is the setting for a political move by the aristocrat Hortensia, daughter of the famous rhetor Q. Hortensius Hortalus, who spearheaded the protest of the matrons against a special tax (on fortunes of rich ladies) imposed by the Triumviri. T. M. Luchelli and Fr. Rohr Vio on the one hand examine the objectives of the Triumviri in their fight against the murderers of Caesar and the exact political background of their measures taken.

13On the other hand they discuss the actions of the matrons, who pooled considerable assets during the years of the civil wars and who subsequently tried to preserve their families’means of existence. Actions and demeanour of the leading women were characterised by their familial relationships and consequent political ties. Especially the women of noble families were in possession of great riches. As a result, they were included in the struggle against Caesar’s murderers.

14Roman women of republican and imperial times repeatedly and significantly impinged upon politics by actively pursuing protective measures, which Chr. Kunst has elsewhere tellingly termed “matronage”. The contribution at hand examines the structures of this phenomenon in detail. Kunst shows that women acting as advocates had their own political agenda to some extent, yet got more often involved in politics by their men. Informal arrangements through pleading or advocacy of women averted failure on the men’s part and provided relief.

15Political interventions in the form of pleas were thus legitimised and made female participation in politics and social life possible. Cicero’s letters impressively illustrate the close-meshed network of personal favours common in Roman politics. Female rogationes were utilised as means of interaction on different relationship levels throughout the domus according to importance and urgency. Best known are such interactions towards female relations; attestations of petitions to male relatives are rarer. On the one hand this shows the exploitation of the family network. On the other hand the women’s actions in a web of female relationships extending beyond strictly familial ties become apparent. Such female clientele originated in part on the basis of the husband’s standing.

16Whenever a female intervention took place in public, it obviously represented a last resort to influence. It can thus be identified as a sign of crisis. As a result, public appearances of women, especially with the army (Fulvia), are reserved for exceptional circumstances. Men utilized any woman they knew as advocate and arbiter, their concubines and other intimates included. Yet, due to their dynastic position, only their legitimate wives, mothers, and sisters possessed the lasting potential to further the interests of the family.

17Sisters of powerful men are at the centre of attention of L. Burckhardt’s contribution. As the author plausibly demonstrates, they generally played a subsidiary role by assuming functions and duties of absent male family members. This is illustrated by our sources for the areas of parenting and reproduction but also for public representation or funerals. Inscriptions shed light on this role even for the lower stratum of society.

18Octavia minor, the sister of Augustus, is the best-known and most important example from a leading family of late Republican and early imperial times. As spouse of Mark Anthony, she constituted a stabilizing link between her husband and her brother during the triumvirate. The sources credit her with the role of a mediator as well as with having dynastic value. At the same time she is used to bolster the positive portrayal of her brother. She allegedly played an active political part in the negotiations of the treaty of Taranto. As Burckhardt argues, this may be questioned and unmasked as a stylistic device of ancient historiography. In the final phase of the Republic Octavia eventually became a device in her brother’s dynastic propaganda.

19Quite differently, the later example of Caligula and his sisters shows that a close and in an excessive way publicly celebrated relationship among siblings was bound to provoke an accusation of incest. As women were regarded as guarantors of family and morale, this reproach was naturally exploited by ancient historiography. L. Burckhardt eventually illustrates a markedly more powerful and publicly accepted role for Berenice, the sister of Herodes Agrippa II. She apparently oriented herself towards Hellenistic role models who openly displayed their status and power.6

20As a whole, the contributions of this chapter bring to light distinct principles, methods, and effects of female intervention. The active political role and influence of women was primarily based on familial and other social relations, economic resources as well as their own personal prestige. Our sources paint an articulate picture of influental women’s roles as supporters and arbiters of male purposes. Public appearance and utterance of women seem to have been well accepted in the Hellenistic world. Nevertheless, they still constituted an exception to the rule and have to be read as signs of crises.

21An interesting aspect regarding female influence and action is their intellectual and rhetorical skills. They not only enabled the women to regnal positions but also constituted the basis for their important arbitral and intermediary functions, which required knowledge about the law, the workings of political institutions and current political events and strategies.7 Interestingly enough, ancient writers mostly fail to mention female intellect and education. Even in the famous case of Hortensia we rely rather on conjecture than actual testimony. Yet, it seems unquestionable that a prominent man had a well-educated woman at his side; male and female members of the upper classes seem to have possessed an excellent education.

22Due to the scope of the present contributions the Augustae of imperial times went unheeded. As a matter of fact, they might well have surpassed their Hellenistic predecessors in political power and influence.8