Greek Epic and Biography

Reading women in epic and biography

Homer’s Iliad presents Helen within the legendary Trojan War. The prescribed passage, Book 3.121–180, follows her from weaving in the palace to speaking with Priam on Troy’s walls. Plutarch’s Life of Pericles, chapter 24, presents Aspasia through her relationship with the Athenian political leader Pericles. Both passages connect a woman with warfare and powerful men, but their literary forms require different kinds of interpretation.

An epic is a narrative poem about heroic events, in which gods may intervene directly. A biography selects stories about a person’s life to explore their character. Neither form is a neutral record of women’s everyday lives. Helen is a character in a legendary narrative; Aspasia is a historical woman whose reputation reaches us through competing literary portrayals.

Helen’s weaving: a domestic activity with a public subject

In Iliad 3.121–128, Iris comes as a messenger to Helen, taking the appearance of her sister-in-law Laodice, a daughter of Priam. Helen is in the palace, weaving a great double-width purple cloth. Its subject is the battles between the Trojans and Greeks in the war being fought on her behalf. The Greeks are also called Achaeans in the passage.

The combination matters. Weaving places Helen within an activity conventionally associated with women, but she is not simply making an ordinary household item. Her work represents warfare: the public, violent world of the men fighting outside. The scene brings the domestic and military worlds together.

Helen is also representing events in which she herself has a central place. This allows an interpretation of her as more than a beautiful woman over whom men compete: she creates an account of their suffering. Her textile resembles the poem itself, since both depict the ordeals of Trojans and Greeks. This is an interpretation of the parallel, not a statement that Helen literally composes Homer’s poem.

Her central place in the war’s story does not, by itself, settle how freely she acted or how much responsibility she deserves. Being identified as the reason for a conflict is not necessarily the same as being shown deliberately causing it.

The duel and Helen’s longing for home

Iris tells Helen that the armies have stopped fighting: the men sit silently with their spears grounded. Paris, Priam’s son, and Menelaus, Helen’s former husband, will fight a duel, and the winner will claim her as his wife. This presents Helen’s marital future as something to be decided by male combat. Iris does not offer her a choice between the men.

Yet the poem also gives Helen an emotional life beyond her role as the object of their contest. Iris’ words fill her with longing for her former husband, her parents and her homeland. She covers herself with a white linen veil and leaves her room weeping, accompanied by her handmaids Aethra and Clymene. The attendants indicate her privileged position, while the tears reveal suffering rather than enjoyment of the attention surrounding her.

The movement from the palace to the Scaean Gate brings Helen into public view. Her private grief is now placed alongside the judgement of Troy’s male leaders.

The Trojan elders: beauty weighed against suffering

At the gate, Priam sits with the city’s elders. They are too old to fight but remain fine speakers; Homer compares their voices to the sound of cicadas in a tree. These are men whose authority rests on speech rather than participation in the battle below.

When Helen approaches, they say that it is no wonder Greeks and Trojans have suffered for a woman who resembles an immortal goddess. Their response emphasises her extraordinary beauty and makes the struggle over her seem understandable. However, they immediately add that she should sail home rather than remain a “bane to us and our children”. Here, “bane” means a cause of harm or misery.

Their judgement is therefore mixed: admiration does not overcome concern for the community. They value Helen’s beauty, but place the safety of Troy and its children above keeping her there. Their words show how a woman can be admired and treated as a danger at the same time.

Priam’s kindness and Helen’s self-blame

Priam responds differently. He calls Helen “dear child”, invites her to sit beside him and tells her, “You are not guilty in my eyes.” He blames the gods for bringing the Greeks against Troy. His welcome offers her protection from the judgement around her, while his explanation introduces divine responsibility for the war.

Helen nevertheless condemns herself. Addressing Priam respectfully as her father-in-law, she wishes she had chosen death rather than following his son. She remembers leaving her bridal chamber, her beloved daughter, childhood friends and relatives, and says that she lives in sorrow. These details make the consequences personal: the war has separated her not just from a husband, but from a whole network of family and affection.

Priam asks her to identify a tall, powerful Greek warrior. Helen names Agamemnon, son of Atreus, praising him as a great king and mighty spearman. She explains that he was her brother-in-law, but calls herself a “shameless creature”. Her knowledge gives her a useful speaking role: she can interpret the Greek army for Priam. Her self-description, however, shows how deeply shame shapes that voice.

The passage does not give one simple verdict on Helen. The elders admire her but want her removed; Priam excuses her and blames the gods; Helen expresses regret and self-blame. These are distinct viewpoints within the poem, not interchangeable statements of Homer’s judgement.

Aspasia’s influence: politics and suspicion

Plutarch introduces Aspasia while discussing Athens’ expedition against Samos. The Samians had been accused of refusing to stop their war against the Milesians. Alongside this stated justification, Plutarch raises the suggestion that Pericles acted to please Aspasia, who came from Milesia and was the daughter of Axiochos.

This introduces a recurring question: did Aspasia influence powerful men through intelligence, attraction or manipulation? Plutarch compares her with Thargalia, who reportedly used relationships with influential Greek men to promote sympathy towards Persia. The comparison encourages readers to associate private relationships with public political consequences. It is not proof that Aspasia pursued Thargalia’s aims.

Aspasia’s foreign origin is therefore relevant to her portrayal. Combined with stories of influence over Pericles, it could make her a target for suspicions about whose interests an Athenian leader served. The passage presents a claim about her influence, not a demonstrated explanation of why Athens went to war.

Aspasia as an intellectual figure

Plutarch also preserves a strikingly positive portrayal. Aspasia is described as wise and statesmanlike. Socrates reportedly visited her with acquaintances and their wives to listen to her. These details suggest a reputation for intellectual ability recognised by both men and women.

Rhetoric means the art of persuasive speaking. Plutarch refers to Plato’s Menexenus as evidence that Aspasia had a reputation for discussing rhetoric with Athenians. He acknowledges that its opening is written in jest, but believes that some historical truth lies behind the portrayal.

He also reports Aischines’ claim that Lysicles, a sheep-dealer of humble birth, became Athens’ leading man after Pericles’ death because he lived with Aspasia. This attributes considerable influence to her, although it remains a reported claim rather than a demonstrated chain of events.

Together, these examples show how Aspasia could be imagined as a woman who educated or guided influential men. That challenges a picture of women as intellectually passive, but does not establish that she held a formal political office or that her opportunities were typical.

Love, family and the language of respectability

Plutarch shifts from Aspasia’s intellectual reputation to Pericles’ erotic love for her. He describes Pericles’ earlier marriage, the sons Xanthippus and Paralus, and the couple’s unhappy married life. His former wife agreed to the arrangement by which she went to another man.

Pericles then lived with Aspasia and, according to the anecdote, kissed her tenderly when leaving for and returning from the Agora. This gives a vivid picture of affection. In a hostile interpretation, however, such attachment could be presented as excessive passion and evidence that a political leader lacked self-control.

The passage also calls their son illegitimate. This wording draws attention to a distinction between an affectionate relationship and the recognised family status attached to marriage. It should not be treated as a judgement on the child’s personal character.

Comic attacks and competing reputations

Plutarch reports that Aspasia managed young prostitutes, and he quotes comic poets who called her a prostitute. Cratinus combines the comparison with Hera and a sexual insult; Eupolis attacks her while referring to her son. Such language damages both Aspasia’s reputation and that of the man associated with her.

The comparisons with Omphale, Deianeira and Hera add a mythological dimension. Omphale’s association with the subjection of Heracles suggests a powerful woman dominating a male hero. Deianeira’s association with Heracles’ destruction suggests danger, while Hera evokes a powerful divine partner. These are loaded comparisons, not straightforward descriptions of Aspasia’s actions.

Aspasia’s occupation remains disputed. Ancient traditions could portray her either as a sexual figure or as a cultivated teacher, and Plutarch combines elements of both. The insults are particularly useful evidence for how opponents represented her, but weaker evidence for proving what work she actually did.

The chapter ends with another story of her fame: Cyrus supposedly renamed his favourite companion, previously called Milto, Aspasia. This is a different woman. The anecdote illustrates the reputation attached to Aspasia’s name, not a later episode in the life of Pericles’ partner.

Building a balanced interpretation

A useful analysis moves from detail to inference and then considers a limit. For example, the visits of Socrates and other listeners suggest that Aspasia was credited with intellectual authority. Because Plutarch reports earlier traditions, the episode does not give direct access to her own teaching or voice.

Helen’s weaving and Aspasia’s rhetorical reputation both allow women a role in representing or interpreting a world dominated by male warfare and politics. Both are also connected with accusations about the suffering caused by war. Yet the evidence differs: Helen speaks within an epic, while Aspasia’s biography preserves praise, gossip and political hostility without her own words. Comparing them means recognising both the agency each portrayal allows and the pressures shaping that portrayal.