Musonius Rufus was a Roman philosopher in the first century C.E. who lectured (in Greek) on Stoicism as “the science of living.” Leading citizens in Rome became his students. He put his teaching to work by trying to serve as a mediator between the warring forces in the civil war that followed the emperor Nero’s death. His ideas were regarded as subversive enough to be threatening to those in power: two different emperors expelled him from Rome, hoping to eliminate his influence. These excerpts reveal his views on the natural capacities of women, education in philosophy, and marriage. His arguments in favor of opportunities and greater equality for women expressed philosophical ideas first explored by earlier Greek philosophers; they did not reflect actual changes in Roman society under the empire.

The gods have given women the same ability to use their minds as men. . . . Women have the same senses as men: vision, hearing, smell, and everything else. . . . Women as well as men have an eagerness and a natural tendency towards excellence (virtue). . . . Therefore, why is it proper for men to investigate and examine to live rightly, that is, to study philosophy and live by its guidance, but not for women? Is it appropriate for men to be good, but not women?

To begin with, a woman must manage her household and pick out what is helpful for her home and take charge of the household slaves. I claim that philosophy is especially helpful for these actions, since each of them is a part of life, and philosophy is nothing other than the science of living. . . . Next, a woman must be chaste, and capable of keeping herself free from illegal love affairs, and pure in other self-indulgent pleasures. She must not delight in quarreling, not be extravagant, or overly concerned with her appearance. . . . She must control her anger, and not be overcome by grief, and stronger than every kind of emotion.

[A woman who is guided by philosophy knows to] love her children more than her own life. What woman could be more just than someone who behaves like that? Therefore, it follows that an educated woman will have more courage than an uneducated woman . . . because neither fear of death nor any concern about suffering would lead her to do anything shameful, and she would not be afraid of anyone just because he was from an important family or powerful or rich. . . .

It is easy to recognize that there are not different types of excellences for men and women. First, men and women both need to have common sense. . . . Second, both need to live just lives. An unjust man can not be a good citizen, and a woman can not run her household well, if she does not run it justly. . . . Third, a wife ought to be chaste, and so should a husband, for the laws punish both sides in cases of adultery. . . .

You might argue that only men need courage, but that is false. The best sort of woman must have the courage of a man and purge herself of cowardice, so that she will not give in to suffering or fear. If she can’t do that, then how can she be chaste, if someone by threatening her or torturing her can force her to act disgracefully? . . . That women are able to use weapons, we know from the Amazons, who fought many peoples in battle. . . .

Well then, suppose someone asks, “Do you think that men should learn to work wool like women and that women should work out in the gymnasium like men?” No, that is not what I recommend. I say that, since in the case of human beings the males are naturally stronger . . . , appropriate work ought to be assigned to men and women, with the physically heavier tasks given to the stronger, and the lighter ones to the less strong. . . . Nevertheless, some men might fittingly undertake some of the lighter work and work regarded as more suitable for women, when the conditions of their body or necessity or time require it. For all human work is a common responsibility for men and women, and nothing is necessarily prescribed for one gender or the other. . . .

It is reasonable, then, for me to think that women should be educated like men concerning excellence, and they must be taught, beginning in their childhood, that this is good and that is bad, and that they are the same for both genders, and that this is beneficial and that harmful, and that an individual must do this, and not do that. Such lessons develop reasoning in both girls and boys, and there is no distinction between them. . . .

[In marriage], husband and wife join together to live their lives in common and to have children. . . . They should consider all their property to be shared, and nothing to belong only to themselves, not even their bodies. . . . There must be complete companionship and concern for each other by both husband and wife, in health and in sickness and at all times, because they entered upon the marriage for this reason, as well as to have children. When such caring for one another is perfect, and the married couple provide it for each another, and each works to outdo the other, then this is marriage as it ought to be. . . . But when one partner looks to their own interests alone and neglects the other’s concerns . . . or is unwilling to pull together with their partner or to cooperate, then inevitably the marriage is destroyed, and although the two live together, their common interests do poorly, and finally they get a divorce, or they live on in an existence that is worse than loneliness.

Source: Musonius Rufus 3, 4, 13A, Lutz edition. Translation by Thomas R. Martin.

Question to Consider

What arguments does the Stoic philosopher make about the benefits of women studying philosophy?