Would she not be a blameless life-partner, would she not be a sympathetic helpmate, would she not be an untiring defender of her children, and would she not be entirely free of greed and arrogance?'9
He ends the discussion in a similar way to that of the first virtue, commending the role of philosophy in creating a disposition where the woman would `look upon doing wrong as worse than suffering' and being `defeated as much better than gaining an unjust advantage'. He concludes with the question, `What woman would be more just than such a one? 120
An educated woman, i.e., in philosophy, will certainly be more courageous (&vbpstbzsp(xv) than one not exposed to such teaching. She will be resolute in the face of submitting to anything shameful, and `not be intimidated by anyone because he is of noble birth, or powerful or wealthy, no, not even if he be the tyrant of her city'. Musonius argues that, because she is highminded, she will not shun hardship and `never for a moment seek ease and indolence'.21
In the light of the teaching on this civic virtue he again draws implications for the sphere of the home. `Such a woman is likely to be energetic, strong to endure pain, prepared to nourish her children at her own breast, and serve her husband with her own hands, and willing to do things that some would consider no better than slaves' work.' He concludes with the rhetorical question, `Would not such a woman be a great help to the man who married her, an ornament to her relatives, and a good example for all who know her?'22
The remainder of the treatise anticipates objections to the effect that philosophy might have on women educated in it. `But, by Zeus, some people say that women who associate with philosophers are inevitably mainly headstrong (awOabsts) and arrogant (6pawsi(xs).' The detractors had argued that this happens `if they give up their households and go about with men'.23
For a married woman to abandon, in effect, her household suggests impropriety in normal circumstances. Whether it is the case in this context is uncertain as the verb (&vuoTpf~co) implies more of a turning back to life as an unmarried woman. The following statement introduced by `and' (Kai) may well function epexegetically, for the critics indicate what these women are doing. They `take an interest in orations' (psXszwrt Xoyous) and `argue' (6o~i(covTat) and `attack premises' (&vaXucort ouXXoytopotis) when `they ought to be sitting at home spinning wool' according to the opponents of women's education in philosophy. This passage suggests that the philosophers were being blamed for the activities of the sophists of the first century.24
Valerius Maximus, who wrote his Memorable Doings and Sayings in the time of Tiberius (A.D. 14-37), recorded instances where educated women pleaded their causes before magistrates bringing various responses. Maesia of Sentinum presented her case `going through all the forms and stages of a defence not only thoroughly but boldly'. There were also other wives who pleaded causes as effectively as men before a magistrate.25 It is suggested that the reference in Musonius Rufus is to the wife who exposes herself to the results of an education at the hands of the sophists, which would have equipped her for politeia, for which training in oratory would have been an essential re- quirement.26
Musonius responded by arguing that if we look carefully at the contents and intentions of the philosophy that women ought to study, we will see that they were actually taught to avoid vices and embrace corresponding virtues that would benefit their home and families. Such philosophical instruction will have missed the mark for these women in four areas -
if the study that shows the respect of the greatest good (J ytozov &ya66v) makes them bold (6pa6Eia), if the study that leads to the deportment makes them live more carelessly ((qv iTan rEpov), if the study that reveals that the worst evil is self-indulgence (&xoXaoia) does not teach self-control (ow4po6Gvq), if the study that establishes household management as a virtue (&pE 1) does not encourage them to manage their households.27
`The instruction of the philosophers encourages women to be content [or show affection] and to work with their own hands' are Musonius' final words as he concludes not only his apologia in the face of objections to women learning philosophy, but also this particular treatise.28
The treatise that follows is not about married women receiving philosophical or secular `education' (iratbEia) but the importance of educating daughters in the same way that sons were educated. What attracts our attention is that, in this treatise, Musonius Rufus referred to, and explicated, all the cardinal virtues and corresponding vices. Again his fundamental theses are that both men and women need this instruction and that there is a common set of virtues appropriate for both sexes.
Both must (a) operate with `understanding' (4p6vgrts) - otherwise men and women act in a `foolish' way (&4poo6vq); (b) exercise `justice' (btxatonuvq) - otherwise the man cannot be a good citizen and the woman cannot manage her own household well (presumably the servants and others) and as a result they will be `unjust' (&btxia). The same is also true of `chastity' or `self-control' (Gw4po6uvq). Chastity applies to both, for she must be chaste in wedlock `and so it is likewise for the man'. Musonius indicates that in the law, i.e., Roman law, there is no difference in terms of punishment `for committing adultery as for being taken in adultery'.29
On the virtue of self-control he asserts -
Gluttony, drunkenness, and other related vices, which are vices of excess and bring disgrace upon those guilty of them, show that self-control is most necessary for every human being, male and female alike; for the only way to escape `wantonness' (&xoXaoia) is through `self-control' (ou4po- 6uvn); there is no other.30
He dismisses the idea that `courage' (&vbpsia) is needed only for men, having argued in the previous treatise its importance for women so that they are not guilty of `cowardice' (briaia). These last two paragraphs cite all the cardinal virtues and their corresponding vices.
This section concludes by stating that all these virtues are necessary for both men and women, and hence are appropriate for the instruction of both sons and daughters. `Shall we not teach them both alike the art by which a human being becomes good?' is answered with `Yes, we certainly must do that and nothing else.'31
The arguments of his detractors have been again anticipated. Here Musonius draws conclusions which support his view of equal access in both education and work. In response to the above discussion he asks, `Were the Stoic philosophers requiring men to learn spinning and women to undertake gymnastic exercises in the same way young men did at a particular stage of their education?"I should not demand that' is the response.32 On the basis of a man's physical makeup he is better equipped to undertake heavy work, and indoor work is more appropriate for women, but Musonius adds -
occasionally, however, some men might more fittingly handle certain of the lighter tasks and what is generally considered women's work, and again, women might do heavier tasks.... For all human tasks, I am inclined to believe, are a common obligation and are common for men and women, and none is necessarily appointed for either exclusively.33
There is no suggestion that gender demarcations were totally fixed, and this further supports his interesting view of the importance of education for both sons and daughters in order to equip them to act in their given responsibilities on the basis of the cardinal virtues. How people became good, whether male or female, was one of his fundamental concerns; the answer was found in being taught the cardinal virtues.
Another area covered by Musonius was the single men to whom (it was said) some married women gave their sexual favours, a matter that also concerned Augustus. The Stoic counter-cultural teaching On Sexual Indulgence for men must have shocked some, for fornication and adultery by men were seen as a given right in first-century society.
A century before, Cicero had poured scorn on the attitude of sexual abstinence by young single men on receiving the toga virilis.
Is there anyone who thinks that youth should be forbidden affairs even with courtesans? He is doubtless eminently austere, but his view is contrary not only to the licence of this age, but also to the custom and concessions of our ancestors. For
when was this not a common practice? When was it blamed? When was it forbidden? When, in fact, was it that what is allowed was not allowed?34
According to Cato, in Republican times `[a wife], however, cannot dare to lay a finger on you if you commit adultery, nor is it the law'.35
New ground is broken, for Musonius condemns fornication by young men as a severe failure in the virtue of self-control. His basic thesis on sexual excess is that it is a significant part of a life of luxury and self-indulgence and therefore unlawful. Sex is for procreation, not `pleasure-seeking, even in marriage' is his opening, provocative statement. Adultery is unlawful and represents a lack of self-control on the part of married men.
But of all sexual relations those involving adultery are most unlawful, and no more tolerable are those of men with men, because it is a monstrous thing and contrary to nature. But, furthermore, leaving out consideration of adultery, all intercourse with women which is without lawful character is shameful and is practised from `lack of self-restraint' (&Koaaaia) - the vice whose antithesis is `self-control'.36
He then proceeds to discuss the latter and its implications in terms of sexual partners. `So no one with any self-control would think of having relations with a courtesan or a free woman apart from marriage, no, not even with his own maid-servant .137
That illicit affairs are secretive shows that they are wrong, according to Musonius.
The fact that those relationships are not lawful or seemly makes them a disgrace and a reproach to those seeking them; whence it is that no one dares to do any of these things openly, not even if he has all but lost the ability to blush, and those who are not completely degenerate dare to do these things only in hiding and in secret. And yet to attempt to cover up what one is doing is equivalent to a confession of guilt.38
As usual he anticipates possible objections.
"That's all very well," you say, "but unlike the adulterer who wrongs the husband of the woman he corrupts, the man who has relations with a courtesan or a woman who has no husband wrongs no one for he does not destroy anyone's hope of children .1131
He robustly responds on the basis that -
everyone who sins and does wrong even if it affects none of the people about him, immediately reveals himself as a worse and less honourable person, for the wrong-doer by the very fact of doing wrong is worse and less honourable. Not to mention the injustice of the thing, there must be sheer wantonness in anyone yielding to the temptation of shameful pleasure and like swine rejoicing in his own vileness.4o
Musonius specifically denounces one culturally acceptable sexual liaison.
In this category [of vileness] belongs the man who has relations with his own slave-maid, a thing which some people consider quite without blame, since every master is held to have it in his power to use his slave as he wishes.41
His response goes to the heart of the matter concerning equality between the sexes.
In reply to this I have just one thing to say: if it seems neither shameful nor out of place for a master to have relations with his own slave, particularly if she happens not to be married, let him consider how he would like it if his wife had relations with a male slave. Would it not be completely intolerable not only if the woman who had a lawful husband had relations with a slave, but even if a woman without a husband should have one?42
It was not only Musonius who took this stance. Seneca did also and, as Rist has noted, `As equals they should be given equal moral rights as well as responsibilities. If chastity should be expected of a wife, it should similarly be expected of a husband .143
Musonius further pushes home his thesis by arguing -
And yet surely one will not expect men to be less moral than women, nor less capable of disciplining their desires, thereby revealing the stronger in judgement inferior to the weaker, the rulers to the ruled. In fact, it behoves men to be much better if they expect to be superior to women, for surely if they appear to be less self-controlled they will also be baser characters. What need is there to say that it is an act of licentiousness and nothing else for a master to have relations with his slave? Everyone knows that.44
`Gluttony, drunkenness, and other related vices, which are vices of excess and bring disgrace upon those guilty of them, show that self-control is necessary for every human being, male and female alike, for the only way to escape from wantonness is through self- control.'45
Musonius was neither the first nor the last person to observe this. Plutarch asked, `Is there any difference for a man who employs aphrodisiacs to stir and excite licentiousness for the purpose of pleasure, or stimulates his taste by odours and sauces?' He had also commented that `intemperate intercourse follows a lawless meal'.46
All this is important for both men and women, and it is for this reason that Musonius believes that women ought to receive the same education as men which he believes is important for women in respect to virtue. He also believes that husbands and wives `should consider all their property to be common, and nothing private, not even their bodies'.
The complete picture of Musonius on marriage would not be presented if a segment was not cited from "What is the chief end of marriage?"47
But in marriage there must be above all perfect companionship and mutual love of husband and wife, both in health and sickness and under all conditions, since it was the desire for this as well as for having children that both entered upon marriage. Where, then, this love for each other is perfect and the two share it completely, each striving to outdo the other in devotion, the marriage is ideal and worthy of envy, for such a union is beautiful. But where each looks only to his own interests and neglects the other, or, what is worse, when one is so minded and lives in the same house but fixes his attention elsewhere and is not willing to pull together with his yokemate nor to agree, then the union is doomed to disaster, and even though they live together, yet their common interests fare badly; eventually they separate entirely, or they remain together and suffer what is worse than loneliness.48
Here, in the words of Shakespeare, `the marriage of true minds' is described and also a very insightful, and almost timeless diagnosis of marriage breakdowns.
The Stoics were not the only ones who discussed these matters. In a letter from the Pythagorean School of philosophy written by a woman, Melissa, to Clearete the issue of the modest wife was also the subject of discussion, while a letter from Theano to Euboule talks about raising children. Susan Pomeroy summarises the concerns of the Neo-Pythagoreans: `Thus, adhering closely to Pythagorean doctrine, the Neo-Pythagorean treatises by women about women discuss the proper behaviour of women, recommending, for the most part, purity, control of one's appetites, and tolerance of a husband's vices. The authors are notably preoccupied with the temptations of adultery. Excessive use of makeup, fine clothing, and frequent bathing are viewed as preludes to seduction.'49 While this school has its roots in Greek philosophical tradition, Treggiari has no doubts that it influenced first-century thinking, including that of the Romans.50 The dating of the sources has long preoccupied ancient historians .5 1 There are invaluable letters that preserve teaching concerning the modest wife. These are not the only treatises. As Judge points out, one from that philosophical school is written in Koine Greek and not in the Doric dialect as were more than forty from the Pythagorean corpus.52 The latter was used by Greeks in the south of Italy in Roman times. Pomeroy has suggested that they were turned into Koine when brought to Alexandria .51
Melissa to Clearete, Greetings.
Of your own volition it appears to me that you have the characteristics of what is good. For you wish zealously to hear [teaching] about a wife's adornment. It gives a good indication that you intend to perfect yourself according to virtue. It is necessary then for the free and modest (XEGdcpav Kai o 4 pova) wife to live with her lawful husband adorned with quietness, white and clean in her dress, plain but not costly, simple but not elaborate or excessive. For she must reject [see Stadele text] garments shot with purple or gold. For these ar
e used by hetairai (call-girls) in soliciting men generally, but if she is to be attractive to one man, her own husband, the orna ment of a wife is her manner and not her dress (oToX1 , stola). And a free and modest wife (0,E6OEpav xai o 4 pova) must appear attractive to her own husband, but not to the man next door, having on her cheeks the blush of modesty (&pEwc) rather than of rouge and powder, and a good and noble bearing and decency and modesty (xaXoxayaOiav xai xocypi&q ra xai 6w4po6Gvqv) rather than gold and emerald. For it is not in expenditure on clothing and looks that the modest woman (o 4 pova) should express her love of the good but in the management and maintenance of her household) and pleasing her own husband, given that he is a moderate man (ow4povoovri), by fulfilling his wishes. For the husband's will ought to be engraved as law on a decent wife's mind and she must live by it. And she must consider that the dowry she has brought with her that is best and greatest of all is her good order and trust in both the beauty and wealth of the soul rather than in money and appearance. As for money and looks, time, hostility, illness and fortune take them away: rather the adornment of soul lasts till death with women who possess it.s4
In another letter the issue of bringing up children is discussed.
Theano to Euboule, greetings. I hear you are bringing up (rpe~Ety) the children indulgently. But a [good ...] mother's interest is not [concern for the pleasure] of the children but their [training in moderation (Tb 6w4pov &ywyi ). Look] out lest you accomplish not the work of a loving mother, but that of a doting one. When pleasure and children are brought up together, it makes the children undisciplined.... Take care, my friend - conscious of the fact that children who live licentiously become slaves when they blossom into manhood - to deprive them of such pleasures. Make their nourishment austere rather than sumptuous.ss
Roman Wives, Roman Widows Page 8
