Feminism in Greek Literature from Homer to Aristotle
Aristotle · en
It is evident why mothers love their children more than
fathers. The procreation of children is the universal function
of animals. In the case of other animals, this is the limit
of their association; but men and women unite not only for
the procreation of children but for the purposes of life. As
soon as they unite, a distribution of functions takes place.
Some are proper to the husband and others to the wife; hence
they supply one another’s needs, each contributing to the
common stock. Utility and pleasure seem alike to be found
in the marriage relationship, but its basis will be virtue,
too. Children are a bond of union, and such marriages as are
childless are dissolved with comparatively little difficulty.[8]
The _Politics_ begin with a discussion of slavery, and, by an association
of ideas natural in Greek society, for Aristotle never attempts to rise
above the conditions of life about him, slaves and women are treated
together:
He who can foresee with his mind is by nature intended to
be lord and master; and he who can work with his body is a
subject, and by nature a slave: hence, master and slave have
the same interest. Nature, however, has distinguished between
the female and the slave. For she is not niggardly; she makes
each thing for a single use, and every instrument is best
made when intended for one and not for many uses. But among
barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves.
It should be noticed here that the essential quality of the master is not
physical strength, but mental capacity; it is the mind and not the body
that makes the ‘natural’ slave, the ‘live tool,’ as Aristotle defines
him. Man and woman, master and slave, these are the foundations of the
family. As Hesiod says: ‘First a house, then a woman, and then an ox for
the plough’; and Aristotle has no difficulty in finding the arrangement
right. He puts the question:
Is there any one intended by nature to be a slave, so that
for him the condition of slavery is expedient and right; or,
rather, is not all slavery a violation of nature?
And gives the immediate reply:
There is no difficulty in answering this question on grounds
both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and
others be ruled is a thing not only necessary but expedient;
from the hour of their birth some are marked out for
subjection, others for rule.
The law, he thinks, holds through all nature:
Tame animals have a better nature than wild, and all tame
animals are better off when they are ruled by men, for then
they are preserved. The male is by nature superior, and the
female inferior; and the one rules and the other is ruled; this
principle of necessity extends to all mankind. Nature would
like to distinguish between the bodies of freemen and slaves;
but this does not hold universally.