But the public influence of these women was not shared by those who did not belong to the royal families. And the history of their lives is gathered from imperfect notices and from historians who have no claim to implicit confidence.
Helbig was among the first to draw attention to this subject. Rohde enlarged his notices with critical insight; the details are to be found scattered in Droysen, Mahaffy, and Strack. An excellent account of the position of women in Ptolemaic Egypt is given by Miss Rachel Evelyn White in her article in the ‘Journal of Hellenic Studies.’[259] Mahaffy supplies a fair idea of the nature and difficulty of the subject in his remarks on Cleopatra:[260] “We shall have more to say of the younger Cleopatra, this queen’s sister, who spent her life in Egypt. When modern people wonder at the daring of the last of the series, who has been embalmed in the prose of Plutarch and the verse of Shakespeare, they seldom know or reflect that she was but the last of a long series of princesses, probably beautiful and accomplished, certainly daring and unscrupulous, living every day of their lives in the passions of love, hate, jealousy, ambition, wielding the dominion over men or dying in the attempt. But, alas! except in the dull and lifeless effigies on coins, we have no portraits of these terrible persons, no anecdotes of their tamer moments, no means of distinguishing one Cleopatra from the rest, amid the catalogue of parricides, incests, exiles, bereavements!”
The papyri recently discovered throw much new light on the position of women in Egypt, but some difficult questions will not be settled until further discoveries of papyri are made. Especially perplexing is it to settle what is purely Egyptian and what changes were introduced by Greek and Roman usages. Some points, however, are quite clear. It is certain, for instance, that it was usual for brother and sister to marry, and the arrangement was deemed particularly suitable when inheritance of property was concerned. The marriage of the sister to the brother smoothed the way to satisfactory settlements. It is also on all hands allowed that the rights of women are protected and the wife holds an advantageous position in the marriage contracts which have come down to us. “A predominance,” says Ruggiero, “of the man over the woman, a suggestion of such an idea in its earliest stage, any hint, in fine, of marital authority is entirely wanting.”[261]
There were two kinds of marriages, the ἄγραφος γάμος and the ἔγγραφος γάμος, the marriage without a full written contract and the marriage with a full written contract. The first seems like a Scotch marriage, where the parties agree to marry and to live with each other, but do not make complete stipulations as to property and children. With regard to this form the information is deficient and the opinions of scholars are divided in regard to some details of it.
The ἔγγραφος γάμος implied a fully drawn-out contract of marriage. Express mention is made of the dowry and the means of supporting the wife and the conditions of a dissolution of the marriage in regard to property and often in regard to children. The early Egyptians do not seem to have made wills, and they embodied the substance of what would have been their wills in their marriage contracts.
Marriage was a matter of purely civil contract. Each party entered on the marriage without any constraint, and each party could cancel the contract and thereby the marriage. In the strict sense of the word there could be no divorce. No legal judgment was required for cancelling the marriage contracts. It is a remarkable circumstance that in all the documents cancelling the marriage contracts which have come down to us no mention is made of the reason which led to the annulling of the contract. Only once it is suggested that “some evil daimon” may be at the bottom of it.[262] The arrangements in cancelling marriage contracts are strongly in favour of the wife. Nietzold, after describing in detail the conditions laid down in such documents, says: “According to all these arrangements the wife takes a very favourable position. She has by the separation absolutely nothing to lose, even when she is the guilty party.”
The reader may form a good idea of what was involved in a regular marriage from a marriage contract which, with Dr. Grenfell’s permission, I subjoin. It is a contract (92 B.C.) belonging to the period of the Ptolemies, when Greek influence was strong, but at the same time it well represents generally the contents of all Egyptian contracts. It appears in the ‘Tebtunis Papyri,’ Part 1., p. 452.
“The 22nd year, Mecheir 11. Philiscus son of Apollonius, a Persian of the Epigone, acknowledges to Apollonia, also called Kellauthis, daughter of Heraclides, Persian, with her guardian, her brother Apollonius, that he has received from her in copper money 2 talents 4,000 drachmae, the amount of the dowry for Apollonia agreed upon with him.... The keeper of the contract is Dionysius.”
“In the 22nd year of the reign of Ptolemy, also called Alexander, the god Philometor, in the priesthood of the priest of Alexander, and the rest as written in Alexandria, the 11th of the month Xandicus, which is the 11th of Mecheir, at Kerkeosiris in the division of Polemon of the Arsinoite nome. Philiscus, son of Apollonius, Persian, of the Epigone, acknowledges to Apollonia, also called Kellauthis, daughter of Heraclides, Persian, with her guardian, her brother Apollonius, that he has received from her in copper money 2 talents 4,000 drachmae, the dowry for Apollonia agreed upon with him. Apollonia shall remain with Philiscus, obeying him as a wife should her husband, owning their property in common with him. Philiscus shall supply to Apollonia all necessaries and clothing, and whatever is proper for a wedded wife, whether he is at home or abroad, so far as their property shall admit. It shall not be lawful for Philiscus to bring in any other wife but Apollonia, nor to keep a concubine or lover, nor to beget children by another woman in Apollonia’s lifetime, nor to live in another house over which Apollonia is not mistress, nor to eject, or insult, or ill-treat her, nor to alienate any of their property to Apollonia’s disadvantage. If he is shown to be doing any of these things, or does not supply her with necessaries and clothing, and the rest, as has been said, Philiscus shall forfeit forthwith to Apollonia the dowry of 2 talents 4,000 drachmae of copper. In the same way it shall not be lawful for Apollonia to spend the night or day away from the house of Philiscus without Philiscus’ consent, or to have intercourse with another man, or to ruin the common household, or to bring shame upon Philiscus in anything that causes a husband shame. If Apollonia wishes of her own will to separate from Philiscus, Philiscus shall repay her the bare dowry within ten days from the day it is demanded back. If he does not repay it as has been stated, he shall forthwith forfeit the dowry he has received increased by one half. The witnesses are Dionysius son of Patron, Dionysius son of Hermaiscus, Theon son of Ptolemaeus, Didymus son of Ptolemaeus, Dionysius son of Dionysius, Heracleus son of Diodes, all six Macedonians of the Epigone; the keeper of the contract is Dionysius. (Signed) I, Philiscus, son of Apollonius, Persian of the Epigone, acknowledge the receipt of the dowry, the 2 talents 4,000 drachmae of copper, as above written, and I will act with regard to the dowry as ... I, Dionysius, son of Hermaiscus, the aforesaid, wrote for him as he was illiterate. I, Dionysius, have received the contract, being valid. Registered the 22nd year, Mecheir 11.”