Aspasia of Miletus has been momentously influential for thousands of years. An important example of an ancient rhetor, Aspasia’s social life, her morals, and her ability to conform in a male-dominated society has been intensely studied and in some cases, harshly criticized. For example, scholar Madeleine M. Henry commented on Aspasia’s life stating that, “to ask questions about Aspasia’s life is to ask questions about half of humanity.” While there is clearly no doubt that Aspasia has been an influential figure for rhetoricians of both genders for centuries, what does her personal life have to do with it? Some scholars have approached Aspasia as an immoral woman whose contributions should be dismissed or accredited to the male figures in her life because of her alleged ties with prostitution and brothels—making the argument that she was somehow unfit to have actually contributed to society because of her morals, or lack thereof. Yet other scholars use this biographical information as a compliment, or in extreme cases, as the sole reason that Aspasia is remembered today. Some argue that Aspasia’s overall lifelong contributions to rhetorical tradition and society in general, enhancing her power as a woman in a male-centered world, are the result of her being a courtesan. This sexual position in society was the defining gateway that allowed Aspasia to be in the presence of influential males on a daily basis. But what she did with this position of power is what is particularly interesting in our studies. I will specifically be looking at what scholars have to say about Aspasia’s morals in the context of her rhetorical teachings alongside male figures like Pericles and Socrates. I argue, that whether or not proper credit is given to Aspasia where due is largely based on the historiographical biased approach certain scholars have adopted in relation to her morals and sexual choices. Furthermore, I aim to prove that despite the evidence of Aspasia’s “questionable” sexual practices, these in no way distract from her extraordinary ability to teach and perform intellectually alongside her male counterparts and companions. We essentially remember Aspasia as a rhetor and secondly a courtesan; we do not remember her solely as the latter.
It seems that little is known historically about Aspasia’s early life and family; however, it is clearly evident that her family owned a considerable fortune. Aspasia was excellently educated in the Greek city of Miletus before making her way to Athens as a young adult. Once in Athens, controversy began to surround Aspasia’s life, and many believe that she became a hetaira and operated a brothel. Historically, prostitution was legal in Athens as long as it was not conducted by an Athenian citizen, and Aspasia, being an outsider as well as a woman, was not considered a citizen in the eyes of ancient Grecian law (“Hetaira”). These courtesans were often praised for their intellect and were always well-educated—a luxury the majority of Greek women never experienced. These women were not the “lowly” prostitutes that worked on streets or operated out of brothels, but rather, distinctive women who carried some clout in their societies and were said to hold themselves to a higher standard in their sexual relations with companions rather than “customers.” Aspasia was the lover and intellectual partner of Pericles and it is widely believed that they were never married. Because of her choice not to marry, Aspasia enjoyed a reprieve from the responsibilities women took on when they entered into a union. “As a free woman brought up in the transitional society of Asia Minor, Aspasia was freed from the rigidity of traditional marriage and from the identity that arose from that fixed role” (Glenn 182). Aspasia was said to be beautiful by those who saw her and she reportedly captivated audiences with her incredible ability to speak articulately. Because of the status of both parties, it is reported by ancients such as Plutarch that the home of Pericles and Aspasia became a gathering place for intellectuals to think, discuss, and compose—most notable of these being Socrates. Aspasia was referenced by many of these visiting intellectuals, all male, in a slew of works. As Cheryl Glenn notes in her essay, “the fact that Aspasia is even mentioned by her male contemporaries is remarkable” (182). It is important to note that in the beginning of Glenn’s essay, she establishes her belief in the fact that Aspasia did in fact operate as a courtesan in Athens. But this moral blip does not affect Glenn’s view of Aspasia negatively. Inversely, it is this sexual social presence that gives Aspasia the power necessary to speak in the public sphere. It is evident through Glenn’s writing that she regards Aspasia as a strong, free woman, specifically when she describes the way in which Aspasia “distinguish[ed] herself by her rhetorical accomplishments…and her public participation in political affairs” (183).
By reading Glenn, we begin to question the way in which a sexual double standard was apparent in the life of Aspasia. For example, Pericles was thought to have made love to young boys, which in no way shocked ancient Greek society. However, the fact that Pericles treated a woman as a person and allowed Aspasia to live with him instead of banishing her to some such gynaikeion, or women’s housing, greatly concerned Athenian society. Glenn’s work credits Aspasia and her contributions to rhetoric as being “firmly situated and fully realized within the rhetorical tradition, [though] they have been directed through a powerful gendered lens” (186). It is believed that Socrates “deeply respected Aspasia’s thinking and admired her rhetorical prowess, disregarding, it seems, her status as a woman and hetaera” (187). Glenn brings to her readers’ attention the important fact that Aspasia was not condemned or looked down upon in any way for being a hetaera by her male companions, and this type of lifestyle was just as dismissible as being a woman. But today, as readers of Glenn and similar scholars, why should we be okay with flippantly saying a woman’s gender is disregarded in order to study her intellectual and rhetorical impact? Glenn goes on to say that Aspasia’s accomplishments and rhetorical influence are attributed to her partner Pericles instead, but the argument is that because of Aspasia’s female status, no one would even know the name Aspasia if she hadn’t have been involved in her society’s sexual sphere. So according to Glenn, it is Aspasia’s ties to sexually immoral acts that allow us to enjoy her contributions today. Are we supposed to feel comforted by the idea that Aspasia’s name survived because of her involvement in sexual society rather than intellectual society? Ultimately Glenn’s piece argues that we remember Aspasia entirely because of her being a courtesan. I argue that this is unfair to Aspasia and that the companionship she offered to men like Pericles in no way reflected her rhetorical abilities. She may have used that lifestyle to be admitted to the public scene, but Aspasia was a gifted rhetorician and contributed her intellect and ideas completely separately from the sexual acts she involved herself in.
Aspasia’s rhetorical talent was so great that she impacted society in a variety of ways. For example, scholar S. Sara Monoson discusses Aspasia in her work on Pericles. She discusses the way in which “Menexenus immediately recognizes the teacher as Aspasia, Pericles’ mistress” (Monoson 492). Monoson simply states that Aspasia is a mistress, which is a word loaded with its own connotations, but she does not stress Aspasia’s lack of morals and refrains from utilizing words like “prostitute,” contrary to Glenn’s piece. This is important to note as she continues to make powerful claims about Aspasia in relation to Socrates, arguably her most influential connection. In one context, “Socrates attributes authorship of the speech he recites in text to Aspasia” (492). These claims are different from the claims Glenn makes in a multitude of ways. Glenn places a significant amount of attention on Aspasia’s work as a courtesan in Athens and ultimately claims that although this helped her gain some notoriety in social settings, her work was still claimed by men. In Monoson’s piece, however, we see little importance placed on Aspasia’s sexuality and a straightforward claim about Aspasia’s authorship in relation to a Socratic speech is boldly made. In looking at Monoson’s work, I believe it is imperative to first address the importance she places on Aspasia’s ability to teach. This piece of the puzzle is something Glenn does not make a point of in her particular work; however, the ability to teach is extremely important in trying to establish Aspasia’s credibility and her significant contribution to rhetoric. Monoson references the “[speech] she had written for Pericles” in addition to Aspasia’s work for Socrates, and argues that “Socrates’ speech exhibits many more links with Pericles”, which insinuates that Aspasia was either the author for both men, or that she taught Socrates and significantly influenced his overall composition (492).
Furthering the idea of Aspasia’s extensive rhetorical influence, scholar Madeleine Henry reports in her work that “Pericles spoke with Aspasia’s tongue” (Henry 29). Despite being a male intellectual, Henry argues that Pericles owed much of his success and articulateness to Aspasia, who greatly influenced his speech. Henry also discusses how “Aspasia herself has made many of the nobles into speakers, and Pericles is but one of them. Aspasia made speakers of many men” (35). Here Henry begins to discuss Aspasia’s sexual life and alleged sexual acts, putting her somewhere in between Glenn’s outright naming of Aspasia as a prostitute and Monoson’s gloss over the issue. After establishing Aspasia and allowing her readers to begin to grasp just how vast Aspasia’s contribution was to rhetoric and its tradition, Henry states that it was “delicately suggest[ed] that she had sexual relationships with the ‘others’ as well and that they all speak with words she taught them. Aspasia and the speech she delivers unite the citizens of Athens across generations” and ultimately outweighs any sexual component of her legacy (35).
Throughout my research on Aspasia and ultimately her lasting rhetorical influence, I have found that the majority of scholars write with nothing but respect for her. However, the way in which these scholars approach Aspasia’s contributions widely varies. For example, Cheryl Glenn first points out Aspasia’s status as a courtesan before mentioning her importance as a rhetor, whereas Sara Monoson doesn’t really address Aspasia’s sexual life at all. Madeleine Henry finds a middle ground and discusses both facets of Aspasia, but does so respectfully and only after establishing her rhetorical contributions first. I argue that no matter how Aspasia’s sexual promiscuity is addressed, it in no way distracts us from the legacy and understanding of her lasting influence on the rhetorical tradition. Aspasia’s social life, her morals, and her ability to conform in a male-dominated society has been intensely studied and in some cases, harshly criticized, but ultimately, the criticisms have failed to distract us from the importance of the contributions she’s made as one of history’s most notable rhetors.
Works Cited
Glenn, Cheryl. “Sex, Lies, and Manuscript: Refiguring Aspasia in the History of Rhetoric.” College Composition and Communication 45.2 (1994): 180-90. JSTOR. Web. 12 Oct. 2015.
Henry, Madeleine Mary. Prisoner of History: Aspasia of Miletus and Her Biographical Tradtion. New York: Oxford UP, (1995): 1-36. EBSCOhost. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.
“Hetaira.” Miscellaneous Essays. University of Chicago, n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2015.
Monoson, S. Sara. “Remembering Pericles: The Political and Theoretical Import of Plato’s Menexenus.” Political Theory 26.4 (1998): 489-513. JSTOR. Web. 14 Oct. 2015.
UT English Lit Major 