Paideutikos eros

Aspasia as an ‘alter Socrates’

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_30_15

Keywords:

Aeschines’ Aspasia, Socrates, Socratic method, eros, paideia

Abstract

This paper focuses on the figure and the role of Aspasia in Aeschines’ eponymous dialogue, with special regard to the Milesian’s ‘paideutic’ activity and the double bond connecting it to Socrates’ teaching, namely the elenctic method and a particular application of ΣωκÏατικὸς á¼”Ïως. The study aims to highlight some crucial traits of Aeschines’ Aspasia by examining three key texts, all numbered among the testimonies on the Aspasia: Cicero’s account in De inventione 1.31.51-53 and two fundamental passages from Xenophon’s Memorabilia (2.3.36) and Oeconomicus (3.14). After analysing a set of ancient sources which repeatedly mention the close and personal association between Socrates and Aspasia (Plato, Maximus of Tyre, Plutarch, Theodoret of Cyrus), I will try to reconstruct the dialogical context of Xenophon’s testimonies and to combine them with Cicero’s account. My final aim is to clarify the role of Aspasia in Aeschines’ presentation of the Socratic theory of á¼”Ïως. In pursuing this main objective, in the concluding section I will address two further issues: (1) Aspasia’s connection with the figure of Diotima, as depicted in the same ancient sources and (2) the relationship between Aspasias’ pedagogical use of á¼”Ïως and that made by Socrates in the Alcibiades.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

CALAME, C. (1996). L’Éros dans la Grèce antique. Paris, Belin.
CATALDI, S. (2011). Aspasia donna sophè kaì politiké. Historiká 1, p. 11-66.
DITTMAR, H. (1912). Aischines von Sphettos. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte der Sokratiker. Berlin, Weidmann.
DÖRING, K. (1984). Der Sokrates des Aischines aus Sphettos und die Frage nach dem historischen Sokrates. Hermes 112, p. 16-30.
DÖRING, K. (2011). The Students of Socrates. In: MORRISON, D. R. (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Socrates. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 24-47.
DOVER, K. J. (1978). Greek homosexuality. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
EDMONDS, R. G. (2000). Socrates the beautiful: role reversal and midwifery in Plato’s Symposium. Transactions of the American Philosophical Association 130, p. 261-285.
EHLERS, B. (1966). Eine vorplatonische Deutung des sokratischen Eros: Der Dialog Aspasia des Sokratischer Aischines. Munich, C. H. Beck.
GAISER, K. (1969). Review of B. Ehlers, Eine vorplatonische Deutung des sokratischen Eros: Der Dialog Aspasia des Sokratischer Aischines, Munich 1966. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 51, p. 202-204.
GIANNANTONI, G. (ed.) (1990). Socratis et Socraticorum reliquiae. Napoli, Bibliopolis.
GIANNANTONI, G. (1997). L’Alcibiade di Eschine e la letteratura socratica su Alcibiade. In: GIANNANTONI, G.; NARCY, M. (eds.). Lezioni socratiche. Napoli, Bibliopolis, p. 351-371.
HALPERIN, D. M. (1990). Why is Diotima a Woman? Platonic Eros and the Figuration of Gender. In: HALPERIN, D. M.; WINKLER, J. J.; ZEITLIN, F. I. (eds.). Before Sexuality: the Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World. Princeton, Princeton University Press, p. 257-308.
HERMANN, K. F. (1850). De Aeschinis Socratici reliquiis. Göttingen, Universitätsschriften.
HIRZEL, R. (1895). Der Dialog. Ein literarhistorischer Versuch. Leipzig, S. Hirzel.
HUBBELL, H. M. (trans.) (1949). Cicero. De Inventione, De Optimo Genere Oratorum, Topica. London, Heinemann.
KAHN, C. H. (1994). Aeschines on Socratic Eros. In: VANDER WAERDT, P. A. (ed.). The Socratic Movement. Ithaca/London, Cornell University Press, p. 87-106.
KAHN, C. H. (1996). Plato and the Socratic dialogue: The Philosophical Use of a Literary Form. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
KRAUSS, H. (1911). Aeschinis Socratici Reliquiae. Lipsiae, B. G. Teubner.
LAMB, W. R. M. (trans.) (1925). Plato in Twelve Volumes. Vol. 9. Cambridge/London, Harvard University Press/Heinemann.
LAMB, W. R. M. (trans.) (1955). Plato in Twelve Volumes. Vol. 8. Cambridge/London, Harvard University Press/Heinemann.
MARCHANT, E. C. (trans.) (1923). Xenophon in Seven Volumes. Vol. 4. Cambridge/London, Harvard University Press/Heinemann.
MÁRSICO, C. (2014). Los filósofos socráticos, Testimonios y fragmentos. Vol. 2: Antístenes, Fedón, Esquines y Simón. Buenos Aires, Editorial Losada.
MÁRSICO, C. (2018). Shock, Erotics, Plagiarism, and Fraud: Aspects of Aeschines of Sphettus’ Philosophy. In: MOORE, C.; STAVRU, A. (eds.). Socrates and the Socratic Dialogue. Leiden, Brill, p. 202-220.
NATORP, P. (1892). Aischines’ Aspasia. Philologus 51, p. 489-500.
PENTASSUGLIO, F. (2017). Eschine di Sfetto. Tutte le testimonianze. Turnhout, Brepols.
PENTASSUGLIO, F. (2020). The Socratic Method in Aeschines. Ámbitos 43 (forthcoming).
PERRIN, B. (trans.) (1916). Plutarch’s Lives. Cambridge/London, Harvard University Press/Heinemann.
RASCHIERI, A. A. (2013). Traduzione e apprendimento retorico: (Cic. inv. 1.51 s.). Lexis 31, p. 311-320.
ROSSETTI, L.; LAUSDEI, C. (1979). Su P. Oxy 2890 Front. Dal Milziade di Eschine Socratico. Aegyptus 59, p. 91-96.
SANDSTAD, P. (2018). The Logical Structure of Socrates’ Expert-Analogies. In: MOORE, C.; STAVRU, A. (eds.). Socrates and the Socratic Dialogue. Leiden, Brill, p. 319-335.
STAVRU, A. (2011). Socrate e l’ambivalenza degli erotika. Antistene, Eschine, Platone. In: PALUMBO, L. (ed.). La filosofia come esercizio del render ragione. Scritti in onore di Giovanni Casertano. Napoli, Loffredo, p. 309-320.
THOMSEN, O. (2001). Socrates and love. Classica et Mediaevalia 52, p. 117-178.
TODD, O. J. (trans.) (1979). Xenophon in Seven Volumes. Vol. 4. Cambridge/London, Harvard University Press/Heinemann.
TRAPP, M. B. (trans.) (1997). Maximus of Tyre. The Philosophical Orations. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Archai 30 (2020 [3])

Downloads

Published

2020-05-11

How to Cite

Pentassuglio, F. (2020). Paideutikos eros: Aspasia as an ‘alter Socrates’. Revista Archai, (30), e03015. https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_30_15

Issue

No. 30 (2020): Archai 30 (2020 [3])

Section

Articles

License

Given the public access policy of the journal, the use of the published texts is free, with the obligation of recognizing the original authorship and the first publication in this journal. The authors of the published contributions are entirely and exclusively responsible for their contents.

1. The authors authorize the publication of the article in this journal.
2. The authors guarantee that the contribution is original, and take full responsibility for its content in case of impugnation by third parties.
3. The authors guarantee that the contribution is not under evaluation in another journal.
4. The authors keep the copyright and convey to the journal the right of first publication, the work being licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License-BY.
5. The authors are allowed and stimulated to publicize and distribute their work on-line after the publication in the journal.
6. The authors of the approved works authorize the journal to distribute their content, after publication, for reproduction in content indexes, virtual libraries and similars.
7. The editors reserve the right to make adjustments to the text and to adequate the article to the editorial rules of the journal.