Quote Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
...My point is women were able to conduct business and own property for themselves, and it wouldn't be uncommon for their husbands to be off at work in the provinces or on politics and for women to run the estate.
Lovely to see such insightful discussion.

My very superficial acquaintance with Roman law led me to think women were considered always under the guardianship of some man: either their father, their husband or their son (or some toher male relative). Theoretically a women could in some cases divorce but she then returned to her father or other male relative's care. Could republican women really own property? I thought that was a no-no.

However in theoretically misogynist spcieties strong minded women often overcome subordinate legal status through force of will, and many Roman women were probably quite independent because they had their husbands (or brothers or whoever) were cooperative or intimidated. Also among the "lower classes" i believe women conducted business regularly, out of economic necessity and ability ( a bit like Victorian era women: women in general had quite restricted rights and "ladies" were not supposed to do anything much, but sometimes did, and the working class women ran big pubs, farms and other businesses all the time).

If we are talking about a small group of upper class women regularly conducting trade in the Roman Empire, I'd guess no is the answer. I can't think of an EB-period culture where women travelled widely and conducted trade (although I am quite ignorant would love to stand corrected).