Introduction
Literary works can often demonstrate how people’s views may be similar, even if there are hundreds or thousands of years between their periods. For example, such an effect can be traced in the plays The Mandrake by Niccolo Machiavelli and Lysistrata by Aristophanes. The former was written approximately four hundred years before Christ, and the latter was written in the 16th century, meaning that the time difference between these works is almost two thousand years. However, both plays were criticized for being misogynistic by society, and people often consider their authors’ women-related viewpoints inappropriate. This paper compares and contrasts two particular female characters from the mentioned works, namely Sostrata and Lysistrata, in order to analyze in what ways these characters represent the authors’ sexist views. Although misogyny is present in both plays, it is illustrated differently since the playwrights, and their characters lived in different periods.
Misogynistic Views in Lysistrata
The misogynistic views of Aristophanes are evident as the author uses one of his characters, namely Lysistrata, to demonstrate women’s weak sides in resolving essential matters. Aristophanes supposedly believes that female representatives of society can do little to make significant changes and influence other people or the way the world works. In the first act of the play, Lysistrata has a dialogue with Calonice, trying to persuade her that women are able to save Greece. Calonice’s reply seems harsh enough, as she says that women can only sit at home, “putting flowers in their hair,” changing dresses, and putting on cosmetics (Aristophanes 81). Lysistrata’s answer appears as the first significant point where the author’s misogyny can be traced. She says that Greek wives’ clothes, scent, and rouge are the exact elements of their lifestyle that can be used to save Greece. Aristophanes suggests that women’s only activity and the power source are associated with preserving their own beauty, which appears misogynistic.
Further, Lysistrata explains the problem that she intends to resolve using women’s charm and beauty-related activities. She finds the fact that men spend much time at war unpleasant. Other women agree with her; their husbands are absent at home for months, and Lysistrata suggests that they should “give up all male penises” (Aristophanes 90). In other words, the central female character of the play believes that all Greek women must abandon sexual activities in order to provoke men to abandon wars.
Everything described above makes Lysistrata’s behavior look like the author’s mockery, which is an attempt to highlight a woman’s unflattering features in a taunting way. It is evident that a significant matter as war cannot be resolved everywhere with the usage of female charm as such problems are highly complex and require the corresponding methods and solutions. However, Aristophanes’ play’s central character is confident that women can make men forget about wars by depriving them of love and sex (Aristophanes 90). That part of the play mocks women in many ways, showing that they do not have and cannot think of a more serious and effective way to reach their goals. The entire play is a pure comedy contrasting such a significant issue as war and women’s inability to understand its complexity. Lysistrata does not correlate wars with necessity; instead, she believes that men only fight because of their desire to do that, and that desire can be overcome by a stronger one.
Moreover, another inconspicuous yet highly significant detail in the play points to the author’s misogynistic views. When Lysistrata has not yet revealed her plan to make men abandon wars, she asks the women in the assembly if they are ready to accept her solution. One of them, Myrrhine, speaks for everyone, saying that they will follow Lysistrata’s guidance “even if they have to die” (Aristophanes 90). Straight after that, the play’s central character explains her suggestion, and other women, including Myrrhine and Calonice, immediately change their minds, saying that the war can continue. That part of the play shows how little Aristophanes thinks of women. Thus, the playwright illustrates them as if they loved sex more than their own lives. Specifically, Calonice says she would “be willing to walk through fire,” and Myrrhine would “choose the fire, too” (Aristophanes 90). Women in the play appear as primitive creatures who place their animal desires above the value of life itself.
Furthermore, Lysistrata makes a deplorable conclusion after hearing what other women have to say, and her words are the essence of Aristophanes’ misogyny in the play. She calls women, herself included, a debased race, saying that they are “good for nothing but screwing” (Aristophanes 90). Even Lysistrata, the woman who assembled women from different cities, makes such a statement after discussing the problem and potential solution with others. The conclusion supposing that the representatives of the female sex do not have any strengths except those related to sexual activities is clearly misogynistic. Lysistrata, as the play’s central character, represents Aristophanes’ attitude towards women. In many respects, she summarizes various prejudices about the female population.
Misogynistic Views in The Mandrake
In Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Mandrake, misogynistic views of the author are hidden, and it is challenging to trace them throughout the play’s text. Machiavelli does not openly highlight women’s weak sides or demonstrate their incapabilities, but he creates a particular image of the female sex, putting it considerably lower than males. One of the play’s central characters, Sostrata, Lucrezia’s mother, has strict views on woman’s place in the world and society. She is confident that having no children equals having no home, and when a woman’s “husband dies, she is left like an animal, abandoned by everybody” (Machiavelli 22). In other words, Machiavelli emphasizes through Sostrata that a woman is incapable of living a decent life if she cannot rely on her man. The author’s viewpoint suggests that all women should have children to avoid being helpless in case of the husband’s death. Such a position is misogynistic as it implies that a woman’s personality has no own power.
Furthermore, according to Machiavelli, women should follow a specific set of rules related to their behaviors with their husbands. Sostrata entirely agrees with all statements of Friar Timoteo, meaning that her beliefs are similar to his own. The friar tells Lucrezia that “the burden of conscience in complying with your husband’s wishes in this matter is just like that of eating meat on Wednesdays” (Machiavelli 22). The fact that women should comply with their men’s desires is being discussed as an ordinary, unconditional phenomenon that does not even deserve to be debated. It has been established for a long time in modern society that men and women should have equal rights in marriage, which is why Machiavelli’s views can seem misogynistic nowadays.
Moreover, Sostrata’s willingness for her daughter to speak to the friar and do as he says demonstrates the woman’s faith in the way the church teaches people to behave. However, the church’s methods are far from perfect; for instance, Timoteo suggests that Lucrezia’s purpose is to make her husband happy (Machiavelli 21). Sostrata has the same opinion, repeatedly telling her daughter that she should listen to the friar carefully and follow his guidance. Additionally, once the friar is finished lecturing Lucrezia, Sostrata assures him that her daughter will do as he says as if it were already settled (Machiavelli 22). Although she mostly appears as a loving and caring mother, Sostrata does not actually give her daughter a choice; instead, she only tries to persuade her that everything is for the best. Machiavelli’s work is not just prejudiced against women but also demonstrates that such a state of affairs is normal.
Overall Comparison
The previous sections of the paper illustrate particular examples of misogyny in Aristophanes’ Lysistrata and Machiavelli’s The Mandrake, but the forms of misogyny in both plays significantly differ. First of all, there is a two-thousand-year gap between the works, meaning that people’s attitude to women was completely different during the times when each of the plays was written. Lysistrata and Sostrata, as well as Aristophanes and Machiavelli, are from different epochs, meaning that attitudes towards women and their place in the world and society considerably differ in each work. In addition, Lysistrata’s and Sostrata’s own attitudes to the issue may differ for the same reason. Misogyny in different periods can be traced throughout the texts of each play. It appears that in the times of Aristophanes, women were considered “good for nothing but screwing,” but they had more freedoms since they could freely assemble (Aristophanes 90). In the times of Machiavelli, however, women had to follow a stricter set of rules (Machiavelli 21). Nevertheless, both periods had many elements that allowed for misogyny to occur.
However, Lysistrata and Sostrata have entirely different viewpoints related to the current state of affairs. Lysistrata tries to break the vicious circle of unfairness and calls to action in an attempt to change the way the world works, especially in the field of the relationships between men and women. She is not satisfied with the amount of time she and other women get to spend with their husbands because of their obligation to go to war. Thereby, she finds a solution and openly shares it with others in order to unite and shape the world as they want it to be (Aristophanes 88). Sostrata is a completely different person – instead of fighting the system, she embraces it and even tries to persuade her daughter that she should also embrace it (Machiavelli 22). It does not appear as her weak side, but precisely the opposite as she tries to follow the world’s rules so she and her daughter can live a decent life. Overall, Lysistrata and Sostrata, despite the two-thousand-year gap, both find themselves in similar situations, but their attitudes towards them significantly differ.
At this point, it is essential to discuss the correlation of each of the female characters discussed previously with their creators, namely Aristophanes and Machiavelli, to prove that they are both misogynists. The former one evidently mocks Lysistrata’s eagerness to influence herself, other families, and entire Greece. Aristophanes uses his character to create a comedy, emphasizing the impossibility of Lysistrata’s ideas coming to life. Machiavelli, in turn, supports Sostrata in her submissiveness – the author makes his character’s ideas sound as if they were indisputable. The comparative analysis of the two plays illustrates the following: one playwright mocks a woman who tries to make a difference, and the other one supports a woman who complies with the misogynistic norms of society. In other words, both Aristophanes and Machiavelli had misogynistic views, which can be clearly traced through their female characters, though they expressed their attitude toward women differently.
Conclusion
Overall, the misogynistic views of Aristophanes and Machiavelli can be clearly traced throughout their plays and the correlated female characters, but the playwrights expressed their viewpoints differently due to the periods of their lives. Lysistrata of the eponymous play attempts to go against the established state of affairs, trying to increase her own and other women’s significance. Aristophanes mocks those attempts, suggesting that women’s only proper function is to satisfy man’s sexual desires. Machiavelli’s heroine, Sostrata, is Lysistrata’s opposite as she embraces women’s societal role and even wants to teach her daughter the same. The playwright supports Sostrata’s views, implying that it is entirely normal for a woman always to be secondary to a man. Aristophanes and Machiavelli are not misogynists in terms of their attitude to women in general but their attitude to the differences between men and women. They both deem representatives of the female sex unworthy to be equal to men, and that is the main reason why Lysistrata and The Mandrake have been condemned as misogynistic works.
Works Cited
Aristophanes. Birds and Other Plays. Translated by Stephen Halliwell, Oxford University Press, 2009.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Mandrake. Translated by Mera J. Flaumenhaft, Waveland Press, 1981.