Summary Of Works And Days By Linda Sussman

In this chapter Linda S. Sussman analyzes Hesiod’s exclusion of women’s economic role in ancient society. She argues that the issue is not the fact of women’s work, but the status and its perceived importance for society rather than its actual importance (Sussman, 1984, 82). Sussman believes that because of a major shift from a pastoral based economy to a grain raising economy it altered the economic roles of both women and men (Sussman, 1984, 83). By evaluating the works from Hesiod, Semonides, and multiple pieces of secondary scholarly sources, Linda S, Sussman illustrates Greek structures of class, gender, sexuality, and status. It is no secret that Hesiod does not view women in a favorable light. In both the Theogony and Works and Days

Sussman shifts her attention from analyzing primary sources to analyzing secondary sources.Some scholars argue that the change of attitude towards the importance of women’s work was due to an agricultural change in Greek economy. One theory suggest that the shift in the economy was due to an increase in population size which called for an increase in food supply (Sussman, 1984, 85). Farmers had to work harder to supply food for the growing population which is illustrated in Hesiod’s Works and Days. This added labor could have very well encouraged some resentment towards women and their childbearing capabilities (Sussman, 1984, 86). Other scholars such as Julian Pitt-Rivers speculate that the formation of a more settled village which influenced the shift from exogamy to endogamy culture created new attitudes towards women and their sexuality (Sussman, 1984, 87). Women were used to help form relations between other tribes and when these societies became less mobile the significance of the exchange decreased as well as the family’s control over the women (Sussman, 1984, 87-88). The ability to marry women close to home became to be viewed as honorable to men. However, this honor was threatened by women’s power to pressure and ruin their men. As a result, men became hateful towards women and the power that they held (Sussman, 1984,

Sussman did a fantastic job in giving the perspective of many other scholars. It was obvious that she was entering into an already established conversation. She had an ample amount of primary sources that was relevant to the topic. With each source Sussman did a phenomenal job in dissecting the quotes and giving well thought out explanations. Even though the chapter has many strong points it also had a couple of weaknesses. The main weakness I found in her chapter was how little she quoted Hesiod. Her chapter is about defining labor, gender, and idleness by analyzing Hesiod’s writing, but in the chapter it appears that she quotes Semonides more than she did Hesiod. I think it would be if Sussman had quoted Hesiod more throughout the chapter instead of mostly in the beginning. Lastly, I wanted to see Sussman go into a deeper discussion about Semonides’ mare woman and how an idle or decorative wife is more suited for a king or tyrant. She wrote on page 81 that she would return to the observation, but to me it seems that she skimmed over the