24 The Incomplete Feminisms of Plutarch and Musonius Rufus
In: Plutarch and his ContemporariesSearch for other papers by Tomohiko Kondo in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Abstract
Plutarch and Musonius Rufus have both sometimes been regarded as forerunners of feminism, although the feminist ideas of both thinkers have also been rightly assessed as “incomplete.” What has not been fully explored, however, is the precise difference between the two thinkers’ apparent feminism. This paper will compare Plutarch’s views on women and marriage, especially in the Coniugalia praecepta, the Mulierum virtutes and the Amatorius, with those of Musonius in order to better understand to what extent Plutarch’s “incomplete feminism” can be attributed to the author rather than the cultural background of the period. While the thesis that virtue is the same for men and women is endorsed by both Plutarch and Musonius, in practice they both confine the sphere of women’s virtue to subsidiary roles. However, their justifications are different from each other. While Musonius considers external circumstances, including traditional gender roles, to be irrelevant to the exercise of virtue, Plutarch understands the female nature to be distinct from the male nature in accordance with his Platonic metaphysics and psychology. This discrepancy resonates with their respective views on marriage and sex, specifically on male same-sex intercourse and adultery. In contrast to Musonius, who focuses on procreation as the function of marriage and sexual intercourse, Plutarch places more emphasis on the affectionate bond, especially on the part of the wife. Plutarch is more interested in, and genuinely cares for, the nature and conditions of actual women, and this is what makes Plutarch’s views both attractive and problematic.