Egyptians, Semites, and Women in Ancient Greece

The history of Egyptians, Semites, and women in ancient Greece is an interesting one. I like that we are discussing these topics in this class as my previous rhetoric classes never touched on these ideas when discussing ancient Greece. Typically, one pictures Plato and others as old white men with beards, however, I never thought much about their race except to assume that the Greeks were Greek, whatever that means. In Black Athena the author argues that Phoenicians and Egyptians greatly influenced Greek culture, and, considering their proximity and similarity of langue, this seems like a rather obvious conclusion. However, Euro-centrics over the years have tried to argue otherwise.

The reading “Rhetoric, Possibility, and Women's Status in Ancient Athens: Gorgias' and Isocrates' Encomiums of Helen” by Susan Biesecker, brings up Pericles’ law instituted in 451 B.C.E that stated “that if a child was to be guaranteed full rights to citizenship, not only the father, but also the mother had to be an Athenian citizen.” (101). Biesecker discusses this in the context of its implication for the status of Athenian women. In its attempt to distinguish who is a citizen and who isn’t, the law brought up the idea of women as Athenian citizens and challenged the authority of the patronym because “the law identified no difference between the citizenship of men and women” (103). This actually caused more disputes over citizenship rather than less because the mother’s genealogy then had to be traced in a society that was only recording male linage up to this point. Biesecker points out that this meant women’s status was suddenly in the spotlight. It did not give them full rights as citizens, but implied that they were citizens, it made matrilineage important, and did put the idea of male patronyms into question. Biesecker’s main argument is that the trend in women’s status “consisted of a series of changes that were sometimes continuous and sometimes discontinuous from the past” (100). She contests other scholars in the fields of anthropology, history and classics and the ways they depict women’s status in Hellenic antiquity. However, her example of Pericles’s law brings up some very interesting points apart from analyzing the trajectory of change.

I find it interesting how Biesecker did not mention the later overturning of that law by Pericles himself. According to our textbook, he did this specifically to grant citizenship to his children with Aspasia, who was born in Miletus (56-57). Thus, one must wonder if Pericles lowered the status of Athenian women for the sake of a “foreign” woman? This is an interesting twist of fate, if one looks at it that way. Or did the questions on Women’s status already brought up by the implementing of the law continue on after it was overturned? Women seemed to play a slightly larger role in Roman society, so maybe this did get the ball rolling, so to speak.

She also discusses two essays by Gorgias and Isocrates that argue about Hellen of Troy. Gorgias uses forensic rhetoric while Isocrates uses deliberative.  Biesecker states, that “The action that the deliberative orator advocates might challenge established social relations or reinforce the position of those already in power” (106) and argues that Gorgias intends to shake up the establishment while Isocrates does not. Her essays states, “Gorgia’s defends Helen as a victim of four overpowering forces, Isocrates praises her for her beauty” (106).  While it may not have been a huge step for women in Athens, “If the possibility of an opening for women, however small, had been created by Pericles’ law, Gorgias speech shows no inclination to close it” (105). On the other hand, Isocrates relegates Hellen to the role of the maker of superior children. Biesecker states, “Isocrates extols unity among the Greeks, victory in war and excellence of lineage” (106).