Abstract

The ninth book of the Historia animalium (Book VIII in Balme’s edition) is the only evidence that Aristotle thought women’s character to be connected to their biological make up. This paper will explore what exactly Aristotle claims about the affective capacities of female as opposed to male animals and particularly human females, women. While females within a kind are noted to be milder tempered and more thoughtful or intelligent, males tend to spiritedness, aggression and simple-mindedness (HA IX.1, 608a22-608b4). When it comes to women, they are ‘more prone to tears’ and also ‘more apt to scold and fight’, and ‘more shameless and lying’ (608b5-11). The pejoratives come thick and fast.

However, while these observations might be important from a scientific point of view, they need not be an assessment of the inevitability of women’s behaviour. Aristotle insists on ensuring the most virtuous and happiest lives for all people in the community, including the female half the population (Pol. I.13, 1260b19-20; Rh. I.5, 1361a11-12). Because of this, the evidence from the HA IX must be broadened and more deeply analysed.

The differences in character propensities come in degrees and range over animals in general as well as individuals within a kind (HA I.1, VIII.1). When these are not pathological, the differences within any given kind will be slight. And since the human-kind is in general spirited and intelligent, its female specimens will be this too, even if slightly more thoughtful and less spirited than male specimens. Women, and other female animals, are less prone to anger and aggression, tamer and more gentle.

These ‘character’ tendencies have a physiological basis in a body that is slightly cooler and less tightly constructed and blood that is thinner and more watery. The descriptions of the bad behaviour of female humans must also be considered more carefully in the context of descriptive research, where conditions are not ideal for flourishing in the Aristotelian sense.

How such tendencies could lead to a women being more shameless and lying must be explained with reference to the unique human way of life in the polis, where the control of more ‘spirited’ men can result in problematic behaviour patterns in response to a mismanagement of gender hierarchies.

In these instances, when women’s abilities and desires have been undermined and thwarted (for example, if they are treated like slaves, which Aristotle objects to [Pol. I.1, 1252b1, I.12, 1259a37f.]) then their reactions will be negative, as here described. In examining this, the fact that women can and do feel anger and aggressive emotions is brought to light, undermining a widespread view that Aristotle is unable to accommodate such emotions in women (e.g. Harris 2001, ch. 5). Thus, the Historia animalium can be found to provide a broader and richer view of emotional responses in female animals, and certain resources toward explaining the ‘gender wars’ in human societies.