Copyright � 2026 by Shane
Tourtellotte
It's no secret that, in most cultures through most of human history, women have had it harder than men. This isn't necessarily to say that their physical circumstances have been harsher: shielded from the lethal hazards of military service, a woman's life could well be safer than a man's. Her freedoms, however, were often greatly circumscribed by law and by custom.
This will provide an added challenge to the female time-travelers among my readers. You will need to know the particular mores of the culture you'll be entering, the shape of the restrictions you will be facing beyond those of the society in general. A brief visit to witness one event should not be too burdened, but the longer your stay and the more you seek to do, the more onerous you're liable to find these restrictions.
Does that mean you should stay home, or only visit friendlier (generally meaning more recent) times? That isn't my call. You're the time-traveler; I'm only the adviser. But you do need to acknowledge the problem. My general advice to avoid rocking the historical boat applies; sticking out is not a good idea. Barging into a pre-suffrage or outright misogynist culture with an "I am Woman, hear me roar" attitude, no matter how personally gratifying it might be or how much they might deserve the rebuke, is a terribly risky strategy.
So, what difficulties are you looking at in our three example eras?
In all three times, your civic participation will be nearly nil. You won't be eligible for public office, and you won't have a vote, not that anyone does in Japan or England. This isn't a terrible loss, given that you're not there to have a political effect, but it's part of the existing limitations. You can't afford to be surprised or openly dismayed by these facts: it will look too strange. You cannot be a fish surprised by the properties of water.
As for the specific societies: Augustan Rome is pretty restrictive, though you're a good step up from the Greeks. Athenian women in Classical times might rule their households, but nothing else. They were segregated from men in many ways, rarely allowed to leave the home, forbidden to answer the door, and hustled away when their husbands had male visitors. The only women who got to break the mold were priestesses and prostitutes. I would not recommend that you masquerade as either. (Sparta was different, with so many men in the army, but that society had plenty other restrictions of its own.) In its attitudes toward women, ancient Greece competes with the strictest purdah societies of today's Islamic world.
Roman women had matters better in practice. Behind the panoply of laws constricting women's roles in society, there were plenty of men willing to see and treat women as competent agents -- as long as not too much was made of it. Husbands would listen to their wives' advice, and even take it, as long as it was done in private. Forms had to be followed.
Roman women lived their lives under the authority of either their fathers or their husbands. Fathers had immense power as heads of their households (paterfamilias) over males and females, children and adults alike. Marriage transferred a woman from her father's household and authority to her husband's -- or at least it originally did. By this era, though, most women contracted a less restrictive form of marriage, one that kept her under her father's control. This gave her the opportunity to play one man off the other, and to gain the benefit of her usually more indulgent father in setting the bounds of her life.
This won't affect you directly -- you have neither a father nor a husband here -- but it will complicate doing any kind of business. A woman with neither father nor strict-form husband was legally required to have an adviser (tutor mulierum) on all financial matters. This tutor mulierum originally had to be a family member, but the Emperor Claudius lifted this requirement. A later Senate law allowed a woman to replace her tutor basically at will, rendering the office hollow. This gives you latitude in the middle first century A.D. and after, but before then you've got trouble.
On top of this, respectable women really aren't supposed to go outside unescorted. If you're going to pass as a woman of reasonably high status, between one thing and another, you're probably going to need a man, at least as cover. One suggestion here is to find a freedman to hire as your escort, masquerading as a family retainer1. Another option involves whether you need to pass as respectable.
These restrictions have their greatest palpable effect on the higher echelons of Roman society. If your cover identity puts you in the lower classes, you will have less to worry about. Poor Romans had enough to do keeping themselves above water without worrying about every little jot and tittle of laws and social customs made by people who could afford them. Work was for the lowest of plebeians and for slaves, so few will object as you do your trading and otherwise fend for yourself. It will be harder moving really valuable merchandise and observing some events unremarked, though: poverty does impose limits, social and otherwise.
The Emperor Augustus made things harder for women generally with his Lex Julia et Papia-Poppaea2, but most of this won't affect you as a time-traveler. These laws dealt harshly with adultery and rewarded fruitful marriages with three or more children. It also mandated that women between twenty and fifty3 had to be married or lose the right to inherit. You're almost certainly not getting married in Rome, and aren't expecting a bequest, so you can shrug this off. The laws did place some restrictions on women's attendance at public spectacles, which could well be a nuisance for you.
Sengoku Japan is a difficult place for women, and getting worse4. The rights of women have been eroding for a few centuries, and the Tokugawa shogunate will only put the capper on their progressive subordination.
Some of this decline arose from the nature of the feudalistic wars raging across Japan at the time. Small landholdings were terribly vulnerable to predation by the nearest upstart warlord, so a system of primogeniture developed, fathers passing most or all of their land to their favorite son. Since women could not keep land within the family, they were excluded from these bequests, and lost the independence that came of inheriting a piece of the family land to call their own.
In the upper classes, women were seldom considered more than pawns in the civil wars, used to form political marriages5. These brides were supposed to remain loyal to their original clans, and spy or outright plot against their new families. Trust in such marriages, not to mention love, was a rare thing. Posing as a noblewoman puts you square into that awful mess of conflicting loyalties and universal suspicion: avoid this.
The wife of a samurai would appear to have some real autonomy, but much of it was illusory. She had control of the household finances, because handling money was beneath a warrior. She was expected to defend the household when her master was away, and was trained in several weapons for this purpose, including the wakizashi short sword. The purpose, of course, was her husband's, as she was serving his ends.
Nevertheless, posing as a samurai's wife6 would give justification for your trading in town and carrying weapons for self-defense. Best to make him a ronin, one of the master-less, wandering samurai, to explain why nobody has seen this husband around. You'll be walking a tightrope, so be careful. Absolutely do not wish him away by saying he's killed himself: wives of samurai were expected to follow their husbands into suicide.
The least restraining of our three cultures would be Elizabethan England, and not even because they had a queen. Elizabeth I had to fight tooth and nail to preserve her monarchical power, but her whole life until she gained the throne had been a long series of familial power plays involving her father and siblings, so she had ample experience. She set an example, but promulgated no great reforms of women's rights for the rest of the country.
Women were freer in England than in much of Europe, but legally they were considered no more competent than children. Their husbands, or if unmarried their fathers or brothers, held control over their affairs, much like Roman times though without the exact forms. There was, however, a very wide loophole -- for widows. Once her husband died, a woman gained a great deal of personal autonomy. She could assume her husband's trade (though not choose one of her own), buy and sell property, and decide for herself whether or not to remarry. This well surpasses a Roman widow's freedom.
I should not have to explain the usefulness of this to any clever reader. A female time-traveler in or past her mid-twenties, mortality rates being what they were, should be able to pass herself off as a widow. Concoct a half-decent backstory about your deceased husband to trot out if challenged, and you'll be able to move through and interact with Elizabethan society with much less difficulty. Do not overplay your camouflage and wear a wedding band. Elizabethan widows removed theirs, as the marriage had ended7.
This does not clear up all your problems. The legal force of a woman's signature, or her word in oral contracts, is uncertain. (Your ability to sign a contract would put you in an upper echelon, the five to ten percent of literate women in England, and so would attest to some wisdom and responsibility.) Being married would make things simpler, but that's not really an option for you, besides which he'd likely want to handle your business dealings himself. Your best bet is to brazen out such situations with a reserved but confident poise. Act as a capable agent, and people are more likely to treat you as one. Not bad advice for any era, really.
Footnotes:
Technically you could also hire out or even purchase a slave for the role, but I strongly resist soiling one's hands that way. It may not be as horrible and degrading as industrial-scale plantation slavery (in the antebellum American South or in Rome), but it's still slavery, and I would want no part of it.
Augustus believed that the decline in family life (i.e., legitimate offspring) in Rome's upper classes was weakening the Empire, due to the diminished population of native Romans available to command the armies and administer the provinces. The upper classes, content with their decadent ways, deplored these laws and flouted them as much as possible. Augustus died disappointed in his generation's waywardness.
And men between twenty-five and sixty: Augustus wasn't punishing only the women.
I will assume here that the visiting woman is ethnic Japanese. White women in Japan in this era would be vanishingly rare, even nonexistent. See the next chapter for more on the complications of race in time travel.
To be honest, this was true in all three eras. And it hasn't fully stopped now, even in the democratic West. Dwight Eisenhower's son marries Richard Nixon's daughter; Mario Cuomo's son weds Robert Kennedy's daughter; even Arnold Schwarzenegger marries into the Kennedy clan when he starts feeling the political itch.
If and only if you're ethnically Japanese yourself, of course.
Assuming they had ever worn a ring. Scottish weddings used no ring, Puritans considered it a Popish superstition, and even among mainstream English it was merely common, not universal.
Back to Top
Back to "Say What?"
Ahead to "Shades of Meaning"
Back to Home Page
|