Ružica Ljubičić
Philosopher Aspasia defied strict societal norms through her life and actions. As a woman known for her intellectual sharpness, pedagogical skills, philosophy, rhetoric, and oratory, she faced obstacles that rarely allowed women the right to have a voice and express themselves. Her position as the esteemed companion of Pericles and a recognized intellectual—remarkable in Athens, where silence and invisibility were considered the greatest virtues for women—was undoubtedly linked to her status as a metoike (a foreigner with permanent residency). This status deprived her of the right to marry Pericles but allowed her the freedom to be seen, think, and express herself (Loraux, 2021: 9).
This text explores Aspasia’s philosophical journey, including her role in Plato’s Menexenus (2001) and her position within the community as a hetaera. We will examine how prejudices against her as a lover and a woman with allegedly immoral behavior shaped her legacy in philosophy and oratory. The focus will be on the reasons for the suppression of her role as a rhetorician and the consequences for the perception of her contributions to philosophy. The lack of sources about women in philosophy inspires the search for answers to important questions: How did Aspasia, despite these limitations, manage to contribute to the development of rhetoric and philosophical thought and become a teacher of rhetoric in a male-dominated world? What price did Aspasia have to pay for her engagement, and can her work be seen as a precursor to the struggle for women’s right to public oratory?
The Position of Women in Ancient Greek Philosophy
In ancient Greece, philosophy represented the pinnacle of intellectual and cognitive achievements, yet women were almost entirely excluded from this discipline. The democracy of ancient Greece, which is still considered a model of democratic governance, did not include all social classes; the right to political participation was reserved for free male citizens, while slaves, foreigners, and women were excluded. Aristotle justified this exclusion with the „natural order“ establishing deeply rooted rules that aimed to prevent women’s involvement in philosophy and science (Karapetrović, 2007). Despite these obstacles, some women still managed to make an impact in philosophical discourse. Aspasia, for example, distinguished herself as a thinker and orator who shaped the political and philosophical ideas of her time. She participated in the highest Athenian circles and gained great renown. In addition to Aspasia, women such as the Cynic philosopher Hipparchia and the Neoplatonist Hypatia also made significant contributions to philosophy. Hipparchia, known for questioning traditional roles, lived by the moral principles she advocated, making her philosophy an act of personal resistance. Hypatia, recognized for her exceptional work in mathematics and philosophy, symbolizes the intolerance towards female intellectual autonomy—her tragic death illustrates how women were subjected to patriarchal oppression (Atanasijević, 2009: 112).
Professor Milena Karapetrović, in her books Ona ima ime (She has an name) (2007) and Filozofkinje: Ogledi iz feminističke filozofije i ontologije roda (“Philosophers: Essays on Feminist Philosophy and the Ontology of Gender) (2020), investigates the causes and consequences of the historical marginalization of women in philosophy. Analyzing how women, despite long exclusion from philosophical literature, shaped philosophical traditions, Karapetrović emphasizes their courage and persistence in fighting for recognition of their intellectual voices and contributions. Her works reveal numerous layers of misogynistic prejudice, buried in dust, that limited women’s access to education and philosophical discussions. Contributions from female philosophers like Diotima, Aspasia, Hipparchia, and Hypatia prove that philosophy is not exclusively a male domain but a universal heritage for the common good of humanity. Through feminist philosophy, Karapetrović calls for a reevaluation of the role of women in this discipline, the affirmation of their voices, and the reinterpretation of the history of philosophy, thus expanding space for female perspectives in contemporary philosophical discourse.
From Hetaera to Philosopher
Aspasia, known as the intellectual partner and life companion of Pericles, remains an exceptionally important and fascinating figure of classical Greece. During Pericles’ era (around 460–430 BCE), when Athens flourished under his leadership, Aspasia, as a free-thinking philosopher, managed to secure a unique position in this dynamic environment. Born in Miletus, in Asia Minor, Aspasia was considered a foreigner in Athens, which legally prevented her from marrying Pericles, but at the same time, it granted her the freedom rarely enjoyed by Athenian women (Lauroux, 2021).
Aspasia’s name, which means „she who welcomes“ was associated with the Athenian class of „companions“ or hetaerae, a social class that included educated women. The Greek word for „welcoming“ was used as a euphemism for closeness and intimacy, further complicating her role (Blöndal, 1990). While information about her family is scarce, it is believed that they belonged to the wealthy class, as only wealthy families could afford the education that Aspasia received. Little is known about the circumstances of her arrival in Athens; Plutarch notes that Pericles fell in love with her due to her wisdom and political insight (Plutarch, 1963: 142). Eshin highlights that Lisicles, a cattle merchant, became one of the more prominent Athenian citizens after Pericles’ death, thanks to her influence.
To understand Aspasia’s position, it is essential to comprehend the specific status of hetaerae in ancient Greece. Although they enjoyed certain privileges, hetaerae were subject to contempt and moral stigmatization due to their social roles. Their position was ambivalent—they had freedoms unattainable for ordinary women, but they were simultaneously subject to social mistrust, suspicion, and condemnation. Authors such as Marilyn B. Skinner (2005) in Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture (2013) and James Davidson in Courtesans and Fishcakes: The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens (1998) point out the complexity of societal attitudes towards hetaerae. Unlike most women in Greece, hetaerae were educated and knowledgeable in the arts, music, literature, and philosophy, which allowed them to participate in various symposia, where men gathered for conversation and entertainment. Additionally, some hetaerae earned economic profits from their services, granting them a certain form of freedom. However, despite the apparent sexual freedom and social skills, hetaerae were often stigmatized because their reputation was ambiguous. While they were valued as lovers and companions, they were excluded from the institution of marriage, and their reputation depended on the men with whom they were associated (Davidson, 1998; Škuljević, 2020). This paradoxical position of hetaerae reflects the complexity and contradictions of that time, offering women an opportunity to express themselves outside traditional frameworks but also exposing them to dangerous obstacles arising from the patriarchal society, which frequently subjected women to open contempt.
In such an environment that strongly marginalized and abused women, Aspasia used her position to engage in political discussions, despite prejudices about her moral value and the legitimacy of her influence (Davidson, 1998). Her determination to prove that women could be educated and intellectually equal to men permanently marked the history of women’s intellectual contributions.
Rhetorical Skills in Plato’s Dialogue Menexenus
In the dialogue Menexenus (2001), Plato mentions Aspasia, who, in Socrates’ speech, offers an emotionally and morally binding vow for the fallen warriors. In Aspasia’s oration, it is emphasized that the highest expression of respect that the state can offer to the fallen heroes is the continuous care for their families. According to her, the state should provide special protection to the parents and children of those who gave their lives in battle, ensuring their well-being through legal frameworks and protecting them from any possible injustice (Karapetrović, 2007: 17). At the beginning of the Menexenus dialogue, the main theme is the content and form of the funeral oration, which Menexenus and Socrates ironically discuss. In such a speech, not only the heroism of the fallen is celebrated but also the power of the state. Socrates points out the rulers’ need to emphasize their victories by using the sacrifices as symbols of success (Karapetrović, 2020; Henry, 1995).
However, this type of speech requires a special skill. Therefore, Socrates emphasizes that the speakers must be those who can be trusted on their word. He cites Aspasia as an example. Aspasia stood out as an exceptionally gifted orator, known for her communication and persuasive skills. Her ability to convey complex ideas clearly and convincingly allowed her to influence various social groups and gain respect even among male intellectual and moral authorities. Moreover, her improvisational skill was crucial for her success at symposia, where she had the opportunity to participate in debates and shape public opinion. Through her skillfully argued speeches, Aspasia not only expressed her own views but also stimulated dialogue on important issues, significantly contributing to the social and political atmosphere of her time. Socrates affirms: She learned the same as you said just now—that the Athenians intend to choose a speaker; then she told me what should be said, partly improvising on the spot, partly delivering what she had already prepared, and it seems to me that she combined some remaining parts of the funeral oration that Pericles had delivered (Plato, 2001).
However, in the continuation of the text, an ironic attitude towards Aspasia’s role appears. Menexenus, almost disbelieving, asks Socrates: “Do you claim, Socrates, that Aspasia is blessed? Is it possible that, although a woman, she composed such a powerful speech?” (Plato, 2001). This remark reflects the deeply ingrained doubt about the intellectual and mental capacity of women, especially in the domains of philosophy and public speaking. The criticism Aspasia faces is not due to any lack in her argumentation but because of the very act of presenting public and persuasive arguments, which was considered an exclusive male right. This example highlights a key issue in feminist discourse: why is it that a society, led by male intellectual and moral authorities, cannot accept and respect a woman who enters the public sphere as an equal? Aspasia’s voice, though strong and well-founded, is silenced by society because it challenges traditional paradigms. The refusal to acknowledge her equality points to a fear that a woman might articulate her thoughts just as clearly, logically, and bravely as men, presenting them to the public.
In his article „Why Is Aspasia a Woman? Reflections on Plato’s Menexenus“ (2016), Peter Adamson portrays Aspasia as a controversial figure who sparked extreme reactions: political opponents of Pericles hated her, calling her a prostitute, while on the other hand, Socrates’ and Plato’s disciples valued her wisdom and talent for speaking (Adamson, 2016). However, through a feminist critique, as noted by Sara Protasi, Adamson’s interpretation can be problematic because he portrays Aspasia solely as Plato’s mouthpiece, thereby perpetuating the idea that women in philosophy are merely pale reflections of men (Protasi, 2020). While Adamson points out that Plato uses Aspasia’s voice to present equal views, he does not acknowledge her original contribution. Adamson states: „If Plato was a man of his time in associating women with familial roles, he may have been unique in giving these women’s concerns broader philosophical significance“ (Adamson, 2016). Adamson does not consider the possibility that Aspasia, as a real person who communicated with Socrates and Plato, may have been the source of some of the views and ideas that Plato attributes to her (Protasi, 2020). The subsequent dialogue shows Aspasia as she could have been in Athenian society—respecting the highest values of that society and glorifying the role of war and male figures, which, after all, will be present throughout history. Karapetrović highlights that the example of Aspasia is one of those that best illustrates the complexity of the research endeavor when trying to answer the question of what role women played in certain periods of history and how their historical contributions should be represented appropriately (Karapetrović, 2020: 99).
Mary Ellen Waithe, in her book A History of Women Philosophers. Volume 1: Ancient Women Philosophers 600 B.C. – 500 A.D. (1987), notes that there are two main approaches to interpreting Plato’s Menexenus. The first approach dismisses this work as philosophically insignificant, although its proponents acknowledge that it puzzles them that Plato wrote a work that, according to their criticism, lacks philosophical depth. This approach suggests that Menexenus is more rhetorical than philosophical, as critics doubt the authenticity of the views presented. The second approach starts from the idea that Plato in Menexenus presents authentic views of Aspasia, recognizing her reputation as a distinguished philosopher and rhetorician. This perspective emphasizes that Aspasia, although a woman, is capable of contributing to philosophical discussions equally, perhaps even better than men (Waithe, 1987).
Feminist Analysis of Aspasia: Re-examining the Biographical Tradition
Feminist analysis of women in philosophy is crucial for understanding the historical development of women’s biographical narratives. Carolyn Heilbrun, in Writing a Woman’s Life (1998), emphasizes that women have historically been denied records that would allow them to take control of their own lives. Such biographies often contribute to the discrimination of women, which is intensified by the creation of false portraits. By analyzing Aspasia’s life through feminist and philological methods, we can explore how her biography and historical representations have been misinterpreted. Madaline Henry, in Prisoner of History: Aspasia of Miletus and Her Biographical Tradition, warns that data from ancient sources are often transmitted without further interpretation: “Biographical notes on Aspasia, created in antiquity, are vivid and sometimes hard to verify, but they are as such present even in the 20th century” (Henry, 1995: 3). This statement highlights the problem that arises when sources are not critically analyzed, especially when it concerns women. The lack of interpretation in transmitting biographical data can lead to the perpetuation of myths and stereotypes that further diminish the significance of a woman like Aspasia.
While ancient authors often emphasize her attractive appearance or her connections to powerful men like Socrates, they simultaneously overlook her contribution to philosophy and public discourse. This phenomenon suggests that female identity is often constructed through a male perspective, thereby reducing the true impact they had. Henry further analyzes how these biographical narratives have shaped the perception of Aspasia through the ages. These portrayals often serve to reinforce patriarchal biases, where women are presented as objects of sexual desire or assistants to powerful men, rather than as independent figures. As a result, Aspasia, who was an important figure in ancient Athens, often remains a „prisoner“ of her biographical traditions, which diminishes her ability to be seen as a serious philosopher.
Woven Path in Rhetoric
As an influential philosopher, Aspasia had a profound insight into the political potential of public argumentation and rhetoric. Her presence in Athenian politics did not go unnoticed; both Plato and Aeschines considered her a threat, criticizing her rhetorical skill and accusing her of deceiving the public about Greek history. This fear of her influence is further confirmed by her trial for impiety, which demonstrates how her contemporaries perceived her as a danger to moral standards (Waithe, 1987). Sofia Jansen, in her article The Reception of Aspasia in Classical Athens (2007), explores the complexity of Aspasia’s identity. Jansen analyzes how social and cultural contexts shaped her reputation, often depicting her as seductive and fatal, rather than as a serious woman, citizen, and politician. Through an analysis of comedies and philosophical texts, Jansen calls for feminist approaches to researching Aspasia’s life, emphasizing the need to reassess established narratives.
Aspasia, whom Socrates refers to as „the teacher of rhetoric“, symbolizes the female contribution to rhetoric and public speaking, yet her significance often remains unrecognized in academic debates. In literature concerning the art of delivering messages and motivational speeches, the lack of references to Aspasia and similar women raises the question of the systemic marginalization of women’s voices. This omission is not just an academic injustice; it is part of a broader educational issue that implies that women, despite their knowledge and skills, were not considered authoritative enough in the fields of rhetoric, speech, and articulation. The historical context in which Aspasia operated also underscores the importance of her legacy.
The results of various studies show that men in groups are 75% more likely to speak than women, indicating deeply ingrained gender differences in communication and power dynamics. When a woman speaks, she often faces interruptions or simultaneous speaking by men, suggesting that male voices are perceived as more authoritative. This phenomenon not only diminishes the significance of female voices but also creates pressure on women to withdraw or adjust, which can lead to a silence that “kills” their voice (Latinus, Taylor, 2011). According to research findings, the female voice is harder to register in the context of male attention and memory, further complicating the recognition and valuation of female opinions (Latinus, Taylor, 2011). In a society that often favors male dominance and speed in communication, women find themselves in a much more challenging position, where they must not only express their views but also fight against prejudices and stereotypes. Overcoming these challenges requires empowering women through education and the development of communication skills, as well as changing cultural norms that favor men. Actively involving women in public discourse and creating an inclusive environment is crucial for reducing disparities and increasing the recognition of female voices. Only in this way can we overcome the silence that discourages women and ensure that their voices are present and valued in public speech.
LITERATURA
Adamson, P., (2016.), „Why Is Aspasia a Woman? Reflections on Plato’s Menexenus“ https://www.academia.edu/35587971/Why_is_Aspasia_a_Woman_Reflections_on_Platos_Menexenus 27. 10. 2024.
Atanasijević, K., (2009.), The Ethics of Feminism ed.Ljiljana Vuletić, Beograd: Helsinški odbor za ljudska prava u Srbiji.
Blöndal, S., (1990.), A History of the Hellenistic World, New York: Viking Press.
Davidson, J., (1998.), Courtesans and Fishcakes: The consuming passions of classical Athens, London: Fontana.
Heilbrun, C., (1988.), Writing a Woman’s Life, New York:Ballantine Books.
Henry, M., (1995.), Prisoner of History. Aspasia of Miletus and Her Biographical Tradition, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jansen, S., (2007.), „The reception of Aspasia in classical Athens: A case study in gender and the construction of reputation“, L. Foxhall , J. B. Wilkins (ed.), Producing women: The roles of women in the cultural life of ancient Greece ( 17-35), Classical Press of Wales.
Karapetrović, M., (2007.), She Has a Name: On Philosophy and Feminism, Banja Luka, Bijeljina: Organizacija žena „Lara.“
Karapetrović, M., (2021.), Women Philosophers: Essays on Feminist Philosophy and the Ontology of Gender, Banja Luka: Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Banja Luci.
Latinus, M., Taylor,M., (2011.), „Discriminating Male and Female Voices: Differentiating Pitch and Gender“, Brain Topography 25(2):194-204.
Loarux, N., (2021.), „Aspasia, Foreigner, Intellectual“, Journal of Continental Philosoph, 1 (2), 9-32.
Platon, (2001.), Meneksen, Beograd: Rad.
Plutarh, (1963.), Athenian and Roman Statesmen (Selection from the Parallel Lives), Beograd: Prosveta.
Protasi, S., (2020.). „Teaching Ancient Women Philosophers: A Case Study“, Feminist Philosophy Quarterly 6(3), 1- 26.
Skinner, M. (2013.), Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
Škuljević. Ž., (2010.) „The Saga of Aspasia and Pericles. Heterosexuality and (Im)morality of the Greek Marriage” „Arhe VII. 14(149), http://arhe.ff.uns.ac.rs/index.php/arhe/article/view/1251 25. 10. 2024
