Aspasia

While I don’t think it was necessary for class, I read the fragments of men’s writing that refer to Aspasia. Even though Bizzell and Herzberg highlight the key points of these in the Aspasia introduction, the texts shed an interesting light on the position of women rhetoricians in ancient Greece. I was particularly struck by the selection from Plato’s Menexenus in which Socrates and Menexenus are discussing a funeral oration for a soldier. Socrates comments that he heard Aspasia give a sort of example speech for such an occasion, which Menexenus prods him to recite. Socrates, of course, acts reluctant to give it with the excuse that “my mistress may be angry with me if I publish her speech” (62). This may just be part of the typical banter that precedes speeches in Plato, but perhaps there is something to be said for Aspasia either not wanting her words spread about, or not feeling that such actions are acceptable in public. More interesting is the conversation between Socrates and Menexenus after the speech. Menexenus marvels “that Aspasia, who is only a woman, should be able to compose such a speech” and says he is grateful to Socrates and whoever told him the speech for passing it along (63). The selection ends with Socrates swearing Menexenus to secrecy with the reward for keeping the oath being able to hear “more excellent political speeches of hers.” Thus, female rhetoric is reduced to gossip with each speech being a juicy rumor everyone wants to hear, but no one wants to admit to hearing.

Works Cited
Plato. Menexenus. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Ed. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. Boston: Bedford, 2001. 60-63.

Phaedrus Response

Although it is not a point that Socrates makes during his critique of Lysias’ speech, the concept of audience is a key to comparing the speech to those of Socrates. In addition to the repetition and other rhetorical faults mentioned by Socrates, the lack of consistency with regard to audience also contributes to the relative inferiority of the speech. Though a piece of rhetoric may have many audiences, intended or otherwise, for the most part orators can accommodate for the fact that their auditors are going to vary from one another. The problem with Lysias’ speech is not that he doesn’t have a clear view of his audience, but rather he has a clear view of a few possible auditors, which he cannot seem to address within the same speech. At first the speech appears to address a general public on the topic of whether to prefer lovers or nonlovers, but this quickly shifts to addressing a “you” which can be read as either the beloved or the lover at various times, but not both at once. For example, while he talks about the public opinion about one’s love, it is clearly addressed to those men who have taken lovers. Later, however, in the midst of the continuing tirade against lovers, Lysias makes a more surprising shift in audience. As he is wrapping up the speech he shifts from offering advice to those in the position to take a lover (as he spends much of the piece doing), to addressing not only lovers, but what seems to be a specific lover, perhaps Phaedrus himself (141-142).

Socrates, too, addresses a variety of people and other beings, but with both his speeches he does not restrict himself by targeting a specific subgroup or individual (although, of course, the only physical audience is Phaedrus). To do so would amount to alienating, and possibly confusing, segments of the audiences. In addition to encouraging Phaedrus to define the terms of the argument and keep repetition to a minimum, Socrates demonstrates the value of consistency when considering to whom you are speaking.

Work Cited

Plato. Phaedrus. Trans. H. N. Fowler. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Ed. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. Boston: Bedford, 2001. 138-168.