Aspasia and Aristotle:The First Lady and the Father of Greek Rhetoric

November 6, 2006

Grace Bernhardt and Shreelina Ghosh

Aspasia’s Background Non-Athenian Greek female

From Miletus, one of the Greek colonies in Ionia “it is logical to assume that she came in contact

with early philosophical thought in some form” (J&O, 10)

Arrived in Athens in mid-440s B.C.E.

Sources: Aspasia: Rhetoric, Gender, and Colonial Ideology by Susan Jarratt and Rory OngAspasia, pages 56-66 of Bizzell and Herzberg

Aspasia’s Background Companion of Pericles, the democratic

leader of Athens As foreigner, forbidden from marrying Pericles Jarrat and Ong claim she did not fit categories

for Athenian women of wives, concubines, hetaerae, or prostitutes; often mislabeled a mistress or courtesan

Did she run a house of prostitution? Was she a courtesan or hetaera? Does it matter?

Aspasia’s Background Teacher of Rhetoric

Helped Pericles compose Funeral Oration Kennedy makes no reference to Aspasia’s influence when

describing the Funeral Oration attributed to Pericles (204) Taught Socrates (?)

Developed the Socratic method (?) “It is easy to imagine that such an indirect method

originated with a woman who was legally powerless, in a compromised and vulnerable position, but who attempted to advise and influence men of great power.” (B&H, 59)

None of her texts have survived

Aspasia in Classical Sources Several paragraphs of narrative in Plutarch’s

life of Pericles Oration attributed to her in Plato’s dialogue

Menexenus Allusions to Aspasia also made by four of

Socrates’ pupils In works by Athenaeus Dialogue attributed to her by Xenophon

Jarratt and Ong’s Purposes

“To reconstruct Aspasia as a rhetorician of fifth-century B.C.E.” (9)

Part of a larger goal of “recovering women in the history of rhetoric” (10)

To argue that Aspasia “marks the intersection of discourses on gender and colonialism, production and reproduction, rhetoric and philosophy” (J&O, 10)

Bizzell and Herzberg’s Purposes To explore the complexity of the role of

women in ancient Greece To explore and present historical texts which

reference Aspasia To question how Aspasia, a woman with no

surviving texts, can be included in a history of rhetoric (while acknowledging that no texts of Socrates exist either!)

Jarratt and Ong’s Motivating Questions “Did Aspasia exist?”

“If so, can she be known?”

“And then, is that knowledge communicable?” (9)

Bizzell and Herzberg’s Motivating Questions How can we explain the existence of a

woman such as Aspasia in a Greek society that limited women to the home?

Was Aspasia a hetaera when Pericles met her?

How plausible is it that a woman could have possessed the skills that Aspasia did?

Jarratt and Ong’s Methods

A review of the classic sources

An overview of the current commentary

An undertaking of interpretive histiographical tasks

Bizzell and Herzberg’s Methods Presentation and analysis of historical texts

referencing Aspasia

Aspasia in Plato’s Menexenus Dialogue between Socrates and Menexenus Socrates acknowledges that Aspasia was his

teacher and that she composed funeral orations

The oration attributed to Aspasia is “exaggerated in style, with just the sorts of embellishments that Socrates elsewhere condemns, and full of historical errors that create an absurdly positive view of Athens.” (B&H, 58)

Interpreting Plato’s Representation Bloedow sees Aspasia as representative of

rhetoric and democracy (J&O, 17)

Jarratt and Ong look at Aspasia as “at the intersection of the axes of gender and colonialism” (J&O, 18)

Gender in Menexenus “Reading the literary text against the social

text, we find Plato giving voice to a woman at a time when women were mostly denied public voice, and fixed most effectively in the role of reproduction.” (J&O, 18)

On one level, Plato seems to expand conception of female

Closer reading shows reversal

Gender in Menexenus

Plato’s attribution of epitaphios to a female author emphasizes the purpose of women: to reproduce warriors (J&O, 18)

Autochthony – the conception that men were born directly from the soil of Athens

Aspasia’s oration talks at length about autochthony—Plato “forc[es] her to testify to her own devaluation as a female.” (B&H, 58)

Gender in Menexenus

Jarratt and Ong contend that Plato’s choice to include Aspasia as author of oration serves to downplay woman’s power and creativity

Bizzell and Herzberg present alternative view— “Other scholars, however propose that Socrates really did admire Aspasia and that Plato is doing no more than poking fun at this admiration.” (58-59)

Colonial Ideology in Menexenus Plato emphasizes autochthony

“True mother” for Athenians (whole) and “stepmother” for others (fractured)

Ideology hides unequal power relations between men and women and the power of cultural dominance

Colonial Ideology in Menexenus “Defining the norm through a polar opposition

wipes out difference within each pole, differences that, in this case, expose the relations of production in an imperialist economy.” (J&O, 21)

Aspasia represents the “stranger,” “sojourner,” and “woman” all at once

Questions to Ponder Bizzell and Herzberg conclude that

If indeed she did teach Socrates the so-called Socratic method, her contribution to the history of both philosophy and rhetoric is far-ranging. At the very least, recognizing her activity here erects a monument to the rhetorical labors of Aspasia and other classical women and marks the spot where a more substantial edifice may be built if the search for textual remains succeeds. (59)

Is it necessary for a rhetorician or philosopher to contribute a “method” or theory in order to be included in history?

Are textual remains necessary for understanding a person’s role in history?

How might we piece together the contributions of women to Greek rhetoric in light of the fact that few, if any, artifacts have survived?

Pandora’s Box: The Roles of Women in Ancient Greece Lecturer Ellen B.

Reeder, curator of the Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore

Fall of 1995 exhibit with accompanying catalogue

Reviews the lives of Greek women and their portrayal in art (mostly pottery)

Aristotle

384-322 B.C.E. Born to Greek parents in the Macedonian

town of Stagira around the time Plato opened the Academy in Athens

Entered Academy at 17 years old Stayed on as teacher, leaving 20 years later

upon Plato’s death

Sources: Aristotle, pages 169-240 of Bizzell and Herzberg,Chapter 9: Rhetoric in Greece and Rome, Kennedy

Aristotle’s Rhetorical Theory

Artistic proofs Logos

Enthymeme Maxim Example

Pathos Ethos

Inartistic proofs

Inventio Topoi

Special group Common group

Stasis Conjectural Definitional Quantitative Translative

Aristotle’s Three Types of Speeches Forensic speeches

Deliberative speeches

Epideictic or ceremonial speeches

The Five Canons

Invention Arrangement Style Memory Delivery

Aristotle’s Rhetoric

Never published in Aristotle’s lifetime Most likely not intended for publication Began as notes for rhetoric classes in the

Academy Divided into three books “‘Published’ (hand-copied) for the first time by

Andronicus of Rhodes” around 83 B.C.E. First printed edition published in 1475 B.C.E. by

George of Trebizond

Three Books of RHETORICBook One: Definition and Kinds of Rhetoric

Book Two: Kinds of Proofs

Book Three: Delivery

Questions for Discussion

Rhetoric is a productive knowledge in that it does " 'produce' persuasion, speeches, and texts'; but as a discipline concerned with " 'seeing' the available means of persuasion (thus not necessarily of using them),' rhetoric also maintains a theoretical aspect.

Janet Atwill’s review of Classical Rhetoric : Its Christian and Secular Tradition (U of North Carolina P, 1980) by George A. Kennedy

Discussion Prompt : Practical, Theoretical and Productive aspects of Rhetoric

Epistēmē … Praxis … Poiēsis

Aristotle’s eudaimonia

Eudaimonia translates as “happiness” or “the good life”

For Aristotle, distribution of eudaimonia is not equal

Aristotle wrestles over whether eudaimonia is an activity or a state

Sources: Aristotle and the Boundaries of the Good Life and Aristotle’s Rhetoric and the Theory/Practice Binary by Janet M. Atwill

Aristotle’s Taxonomy of Knowledge Theoretical knowledge

Philosophy Metaphysics, math, natural sciences “Highest knowledge” Actual knowledge that is identical with its object Contemplation of the notion of an “end,” or telos Pursued for no practical or utilitarian end

Aristotle’s Taxonomy of Knowledge Practical knowledge

Study of ethics and politics Directed toward the end of eudaimonia Concerned with action and human behavior

Aristotle’s Taxonomy of Knowledge Productive knowledge

Technai of architecture, navigation, medicine, and rhetoric (?)

Concerned with the contingent or “what can be otherwise” (173)

Implicated in social and economic exchange Purposeful knowledge resistant to determinate ends “Productive knowledge always remains in exchange

because its end is in the user as opposed to the artistic construct.” (174)

Where does rhetoric fit?

Atwill argues that it is easy to exclude rhetoric from theoretical knowledge because such knowledge is concerned with day-to-day functions of the state

It is harder to separate rhetoric from practical knowledge because that means saying rhetoric is distinct from ethics and an aim at the good life (163)

Atwill’s Placement of Rhetoric Atwill argues we should place rhetoric in

productive knowledge

“while it may seem strange to praise rhetoric for failing either to consist of the highest knowledge or to be driven by the end of the “good life,” Aristotle’s greatest contribution to rhetoric may have been his willingness to allow it these two failures.” (164)

Theory/Practice Binary

Atwill states that the greatest barrier to understanding productive knowledge is the modern opposition of theory to practice (164)

This binary causes thought to have only two forms—theoretical and practical

Binary then overshadows the triad and productive knowledge gets left out

The Theory/Practice Binary

Gayatri Spivak writes in Explanation and Culture: Marginalia {JAC 10.2 (1990)}, Aristotle’s techne is a “dynamic and undecidable middle term” between theory and practice.

Can writing bridge the binary?

Productive knowledge and rhetoric Cope: art must be a form of productive

knowledge, but rhetoric is more of a practical knowledge

Lobkowicz: notes that rhetoric is compared to medicine as a kind of productive knowledge

Grimaldi: dismisses domain of productive knowledge and puts rhetoric in theoretical domain

Grimaldi and Rhetoric as Theoretical Knowledge Rhetoric’s relationship to philosophy

and ethics strongly indebted to structural linguistics

Enthymeme is the “general method of reasoning” and unites the three rhetorical proofs of ethos, pathos and logos.

Probabilities can be sufficiently rooted to object reality to make an inference from eikos.

Aristotle’s 28 koinoi topoi are ways in which the mind naturally and readily reasons.

Aristotle’s Application of Criteria Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric emphasizes that

rhetorical knowledge is contingent on context, time, and history (175)

“rhetoric must conform to the key criterion of productive knowledge—the capacity to be ‘otherwise’” (175)

Aristotle’s triangular relationship between the speaker, subject and audience makes clear relationship of rhetoric and productive knowledge with social exchange

Subjects of Productive Knowledge Subjects of productive knowledge are

redefined by their use of techne and act of social exchange

Techne can never be private property; therefore, users and makers of techne cannot be private, stable entities (185)

Subjects exist at point of competition Productive knowledge crosses boundaries

of knowledge and subjectivity

Robyn’s Journal Comment

Anyway, I also think this quote contradicts Kennedy's general belief that rhetoric is conservative. I guess Atwill is not specifically talking about rhetoric, but she is saying that rhetoric is a techne and so it has these features, right? Anyway, it seems she is saying the opposite of Kennedy: any techne, including rhetoric, is not in the business of "securing boundaries," but of "transgression and renegotiation." Subjects of productive knowledge are always crossing boundaries, always questioning.

Philosophy: Isocrates v. Aristotle Isocrates: emphasizes the organizing power

of philosophy and its ability to help us understand life; does not separate philosophy from the art of discourse

Aristotle: philosophy is a higher order thinking available when necessities of life are fulfilled; places rhetoric in the domain of techne rather

than philosophy

Aristotle wins!

Philosophy has taken Aristotle’s definition Aristotle’s taxonomy left room for art and

placed rhetoric in the domain of techne rather than philosophy

Atwill states that “What is lost in the taxonomy, however, is the sense of the art of rhetoric as a valued mode of intervention into existing conditions and a means for the invention of new possibilities.” (189)

Ideal States: Plato v. Aristotle Both are confronted with problem of how to

distribute rights, benefits and honors in a state in which both order and value are defined by class function. (178)

For Aristotle, distribution of eudaimonia is not equal. Aristotle wrestles over whether eudaimonia is an

activity or a state

Aristotle and Plato : School of Athens by Raphael

Ideal States: Plato v. Aristotle Plato believes the philosopher/king rules in

ideal republic; compromise state is ruled by laws

Aristotle’s ideal is aristocracy; compromise state is a polity (mixed constitution that gives political responsibility to the middle class)

Plato relies on technai to define hierarchy of state

Aristotle relies on eudaimonia as basis for state’s order

Analyzing Orators

Questions to Guide your Analysis What appeals or strategies does the orator

use in their speech to convince their audience?

What topoi does the orator use? What type of speech is this, according to

Aristotle’s three types of speeches? In what ways could the orator strengthen their

speech in Aristotle’s opinion?