1 THE DISCOURSE OF MASCULINITY IN DEMOSTHENES 21 AND AESCHINES 1 By SETH BOUTIN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008
2 2008 Seth Boutin
3 Familiae amicisque qui me semper sustinent
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank first m y adviser A ndrew Wolpert and committee members Kostas Kapparis, and Jim Marks. This thesis is deeply indebted to them and their priceless help, and I am deeply indebted to the endless patience th ey have shown me. I would also like to acknowledge my classmates James Lohmar and Mega n Daly. Our discussions about our projects provided a chance for me to learn about subjects I otherwise would not have studied and an opportunity to test my own ideas against the sharp minds of my peers.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................................... 6 ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................7 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................9 2 DEMOSTHENES ORATION AGAINST MEIDIAS .............................................................17 3 AESCHINES ORATION AGAINST TIMARCHOS ..............................................................32 4 CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................... ..49 LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................................................................52 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................54
6 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CQ Classical Quarterly G&R Greece and Rome HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies
7 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts THE DISCOURSE OF MASCULINITY IN DEMOSTHENES 21 AND AESCHINES 1 By Seth Boutin May 2008 Chair: Andrew Wolpert Major: Classical Studies In the following chapters I will examine the spectrum of masculinity in ancient Athens. Men could be either too masculine or not masculine enough. It is useful to consider masculinity as a spectrum with proper manliness in the mi ddle and deficient masculinity, represented by the kinaidos, and hyper-masculinity, represented by the hybristes on the ends. All men would have sought to portray themselves as hoplites, who represented proper masculinity as kinaidoi and hybristes represented the improper forms. After a brief introduction I will examine Demosthenes 21 for details about the hybristes Demosthenes portrays his opponent as completely wo rthless to the city because he has allowed his masculinity to rage out of control. Un like a man who keeps his masculinity in check, Meidias freely insults other citizens and disregards their rights. Additionally he disregards the demos attempts to check his behavior and uses the c ourts to benefit himself rather than the city. For these reasons, Meidias masculinity harms rather than helps the city, as it should. On the other end of the spectrum we find Timarchos, the defendant in Aeschines 1. Timarchos allows his lack of masculinity to control him. Instead of controlling himself, he is controlled by his desires. Because he is so ad dicted to physical pleasure, Timarchos prostitutes himself devours his inheritance a nd the citys funds in his quest for satisfaction. While Meidias harms his fellow citizens for the sake of his own honor and amusement, Timarchos harms the
8 city by robbing it to support his habits. These two men were both faulty in their masculinity, though in opposite ways, and each man was a danger to the city because he valued himself more than the city and lacked self-control.
9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Ober begins his discussion of De mosthenes 21 with an explanation of the coercive and discursive paradigms of power (1994: 86-87). In the coercive model, power stems from the ability to deploy physical force. Power is centrali zed in the state, and the state reserves the sole authority to use force legitimately at home via police actions and abroad through wars. In this model, power represses individuals and behaviors that harm the laws or sovereignty of the state. The discursive paradigm, on the othe r hand, is not concerned with force per se, but defines power instead as the ability to gain ones desires. The discursive paradi gm recognizes that force can be used as power, but rejects the notion that force is the only way to exert power. Instead, it focuses on how ideas and assumptions legitimize the use of force, therefore standing as the true sources of power. For example, if we were to apply the coercive and discursive paradigms to Medieval Europe, the coercive paradigm might focus on how a king could send soldiers to enforce his will on a village in his realm, while the discursive paradigm would focus on the social concept of the divine right of kings as the source of the pow er that only sometimes manifests itself as physical force. A close look at Athens immediately reveals that the discursi ve paradigm is superior to the coercive model as a tool for analyzing its soci al institutions. There was no police force to apprehend criminals; there were no designa ted prosecutors to pursue them in court.1 The state did not monopolize the legitimate use of force, though the democracy did monopolize the right to legitimize coercion among private citizens. On ly after winning his case could one citizen enforce his will on another, and these cases took pl ace in public courts before citizen juries. To win his case a litigant often presented himself as living in accordance with common mores while 1 For more on self help see Hunter 120-124.
10 his opponent subverted them. If a litigant knew how to manipulat e public opinions and stereotypes to his advantage, he could win the le gal right to use force. Therefore the Athenian legal system linked knowledge with the legitimate use of force as power. Extant speeches provide a window into how Athenians thought of themselves because litigants argued their cases from cu ltural ideals rather than realities.2 Ancient Athenian litigants, like modern politicians, attempted to appease their audiences by appealing to their opinions of how life should have worked, rather than to th eir knowledge of how the world actually was. Oratory depended more on how well it was recei ved by an audience of common people for its success than did any other source. Therefore, th ese speeches are an indispensable source to help reveal common sentiments held by average Athenian citizens. Comedy and tragedy were as accessible to a pub lic audience as oratory, but they did not aim at winning a case in which a nything from personal honor to life itself might be at stake. Instead they aimed to entertain, which means that they did not face the same rigid standards of ideological compliance that oratory did. Philo sophy also reveals valuable information about public ideals, but because philosophers argued about the way things should have been in their own opinions rather than in th e public opinion, they are also le ss useful than oratory. Other genres, such as history, touch upon common ideo logy at points, but are never more than tangentially related. For these r easons, though all extant literatu re is useful in one way or another, oratory is by far best suit ed to reveal public ideologies. Orators regularly manipulated public ideals concerning masculin ity to their advantage. This tendency is not surprising: because only men were citizens masculinity was rarely separated from civic issues. The link between citizensh ip and manhood cannot be overstated. To be a 2 Herman 1994: 106; Hunter 5-6; Ober 1989: 37.
11 good citizen and to be a good man were synonymous in almost every case. Therefore, to understand the Athenian democracy we must first attempt to understand masculinity in Athens. This study is valuable today because the Atheni an democracy was the first democracy, and to understand the roots of modern democracy we must look to its ancestor in Attica. The results of Athenian ideals concerning men and government have taken a long time to fall out of favor. For example, even up to the foundations of our ow n nation the link between full citizenship and masculinity was so basic that it was not until th e last century that women received suffrage. With such a strong link between masculinity and citizenship, there had to be a model for proper masculinity, and the hoplite provided th at model for the ideal man. A hoplite was physically strong enough to stand shoulder to shoulder with his peers and fight off a common enemy. A hoplite also had a sufficient comman d of his mind and emotions to stand his ground without fleeing the possibility of death. Even though the thetes were the force that maintained the Athenian empire, the hoplite remained the ideal man.3 Because the orators recognized that the hoplite embodied the masculine ideal, they addr essed their audiences as if each member were a hoplite, though as we have seen above only about one third of the demos was of hoplite status.4 This trope illustrates the points given above: oratory reveals cultura l ideals rather th an realities, and the cultural ideal for masculinity was the hoplite. While the hoplite provided a model for ideal ma sculinity, there were models for deficient masculinity, as well. The character type for insufficient masculinity was the kinaidos. A kinaidos was uncontrolled in his sexual practices. There has been some recent debate of the precise meaning of the term kinaidos. Winkler, among many others, ho lds that while the term is 3 Cartledge argues that the thetes were the power behind the democracy and made up a huge portion of the demos yet even thetes preferred to conceive of them selves as hoplites (61-65). 4 For several examples of rich litigants portraying th emselves as hoplites, see Ober 1989: 204 and 207.
12 complex one of its central features is passivity toward penetration.5 According to his model, the kinaidos is certainly unrestrained, but what places him so far outside of the realm of acceptable masculinity is his desire to be penetrated, or in the zero-sum language often used to describe ancient Athens, his desire to lose. Davidson rejects this Foucauldian model because it often emphasizes phallocentric interpretations.6 According to Davidson, kinaidos does not necessarily have connotations of passivity or penetration, but instead is a term th at denotes a complete l ack of restraint. He adduces several examples that support his clai ms, including examples from the animal kingdom in which animals that were thought to be especially sexually active were so branded. A kinaidos was not necessarily a man who enjoyed being pe netrated but a man whose desires were as insatiable as a leaky jar. Th ese observations on the uses of kinaidos that obviously do not fit the phallocentric model are quite helpful. Davidson s efforts to unseat the penetrator/penetrated model fall somewhat short, however, especially as he attempts to explain terms like wide-anused ( euryproktoi ) and cistern-anused ( lakkoproktoi ) in terms of insatiabil ity rather than anal penetration. The combination of a lack of constraint a nd the desire to be penetrated emasculates the kinaidos. Winkler proposes that the hoplite and the kinaidos served as training wheels for masculine ideology. The idea of the kinaidos as a training wheel work s, but the hoplite can hardly be seen as the other training wheel when instead he was the ideal that men sought to emulate. Instead of Winklers training wheel analogy, it makes more sense to consider 5 Winkler 185. 6 Davidson 167-182.
13 masculinity as a spectrum. The kinaidos represents one end of the spectrum while the hoplite occupied the middle. The spectrum analogy for masculinity mirrors po ints of middling ideo logy. According to Morris model, most Athenian men ascribed to middling ideology, which assumed that all citizens were similar in thei r mindsets, birth, and assets.7 An ideal middling man had as much money as he needed, but not enough to be extrav agant. Likewise a middling man would be a hoplite, and would partic ipate in the democracy in order to support his city. Men who fell outside the middling region could be dangerous to the democracy. For instance, men who were either too rich or too poor coul d be dangerous because their exce ssive wealth provided means to harm the demos or their poverty made them desperate. Obviously to a degree middling ideology was a dramatic fiction. Some citizens had mu ch more money, education, land, and influence than others, but rhetors and litig ants addressed their audiences as if they were middling men nonetheless. Masculinity provided another category in which men who fell outside of the middle were considered dangerous, some because they were not masculine enough, others because they were hyper-masculine. While the kinaidos occupies the end of the spectrum reserved fo r the under-masculine man, the over-masculine hybristes occupies the opposite posit ion. Both ends of the spectrum were to be avoided in favor of the hoplite ideal between them. As frightening as the image of the kinaidos was, the hybristes could be just as dangerous to the demos. Demosthenes uses the term hybris or one of its cognates 112 times in a speech that is onl y 227 sections long. He reiterates Meidias hybris over and over to demonstrat e the pattern of behavior Meidias has exhibited over the course of his life. Hybris was indeed a serious offense and carried as a penalty exile or even 7 Morris 114-119.
14 execution for the Athenian unlucky enough to be convicted for it. The definitions of hybris surviving from antiquity conflict and do not provide a clear understanding of exactly what it was. Recent works by MacDowell, Fisher, and Ca irns have helped clarify the issue. MacDowell searches for a comprehensive definition of hybris by examining some of the less conventional uses, for instance, when it is applied to animals or bodies of water. H ybris is often a characteristic of the youthful and the wealthy, and many examples of hybris involve violence and dishonor.8 It is not a religious offence unle ss it is committed specifically against a deity, and thus concludes that hybris is having energy or power a nd misusing it self-indulgently.9 Fisher also examines the myriad uses of hybris and agrees with MacDowells assessment that it did not have anything to do with religion unless it was committed against a god. In contrast to MacDowells wide de finition, however, Fisher defines hybris as an act of intentional insult meant to inflict shame and dishonor on others.10 Fisher argues that even if the victim of hybris is only loosely implied, hybris is not hybris without a victim, and likewise transgressions involving self-indulgent use of power and thinking big cannot be hybris unless they target a victim. Cairns disagrees with Fisher and claims that hybris can be a synonym for mega phronein which he translates as thinking big.11 He provides several convincing examples of how hybris and thinking big seem to be s ynonymous. Cairns also discusses prohairesis which can be translated as predisposition. A ccording to his analysis the pr edisposition toward hubristic acts 8 MacDowell 1976: 15-16. 9 MacDowell 1976: 21. 10 Fisher 1992: 148. 11 Cairns 10-17.
15 often arises from an over-infla ted self image, which is a problem shared both by the young and the wealthy. Cairns disagrees with Fishers estimation that hybris must have a specific victim, but affirms both MacDowells and Fishers findings that hybris is not an inherently religious offense. The most pertinent portion of this artic le for the present study addresses the relationship between hybris and masculinity. Here Cairns claims that there is a clear link between the powerful forces of masculinity and a headstrong sp irit which values self over others and rejects external restraint.12 Therefore hybris is the fault that results fr om an abundance of masculine energy and a lack of restraint. Cairns seems to be correct that thinking big can encompass hybris and he acknowledges Fishers valid points about hybris having a victim in most cases, so for the most part I will accept Cairns definition. While Cairns definition is useful, however, I would not claim that it is perfect. Recent debate on the meaning of hybris and the term kinaidos, as well, demonstrates how multifaceted these words could be. While th ere were core meanings for each term, one relating to an overinflated self image leading to demeaning other people a nd the other relating to sexual deviance, beyond such generalizations even ancient Athenians may have disagreed about the precise definition of each term. Because the charge of hybris comes up so often, Demosthenes 21 is an excellent speech in which to examine hybris as an anti-masculine quality. Demosthenes attempts to demonstrate throughout the speech that Meidias is hubristic, and in the process he provides a great deal of useful information on the place of a hybristes in the city. A hubristic citizen is completely useless to the demos because he puts himself ahead of the need s of the city in every situation. In addition, hybris does not translate into any corresponding vi rtue, such as bravery. Therefore, a 12 Cairns 24.
16 hybristes is not a man who is too bold and daring but one whose masculinity has become so defective from his lack of self-control that the citizen body must fight him off. Perhaps the best case to examine the opposite end of the spectrum, that of the kinaidos, is Aeschines 1. The irony here is that Aeschines never calls Timarchos a kinaidos directly, although he implies it constantly. Timarchos wa s completely unrestrained in his habits and behavior, and he was frequently the object of penetration. No matter whose definition of kinaidos we use, the term applies to Timarchos as Aeschines portrays him. Timarchos, like Meidias, also represented a threat to the city. While Meidias threat ened the city directly with his insolence, Timarchos was dangerous because he would not hesitate to rob from the city to support himself. Both the kinaidos and the hybristes lack restraint, and it is that characteristic that separates them from the hoplite. The hoplite remains in formation, puts the city before himself, and generally embodies masculine ideals. In this thesis I will examin e how Demosthenes and Aeschines manipulate masculine id eals of the hoplite versus the hybristes and the kinaidos to promote themselves and attack their enemies. These speeches provide chances to see how proper masculinity was set against masculinity de ficient either for bei ng too masculine or too effeminate. These specific orations provide perf ect examples for how knowledge of the negative extremes of masculinity could be very powerful indeed.
17 CHAPTER 2 DEMOSTHENES ORATION AGAINST MEIDIAS Against Meidias provid es a chance to examine self-rest raint and moderation set against the negative hyper-mascu line quality of hybris In this chapter I will examine how Demosthenes depicts his self-restraint as conforming to common masculine ideals and Meidias hybris as subverting them. Before analyzing the text we mu st settle questions about its goal and delivery that affect the present discussion. Whether or not the case was delivered and what charge was used affect how we must read the text. I will argue that the case was delivered and that the charge was a probole for offences during the festival. We will then turn to the details Demosthenes presents to prove that Meidias is usel ess to the city. Because he allows his lack of self-control to sabotage his masc ulinity and turn him into a hybristes Meidias not only assaults the honor and rights of his fellow citizens, but even harms the demos Furthermore, Meidias hybris does not bring with it any concomitant benefits. Instead, because he has allowed his masculinity to move out of the middle of the spectrum and into the range of the hybristes he has become entirely useless. In the year 347/6 Demosthenes resumed pros ecution of a wealthy Athenian named Meidias for an offence that occurred at the festival of Dionysos in the summer of 348. According to Demosthenes, Meidias struck him in the theater while he was serving as a chorus producer. He first pursued the case as a probole, a procedure immediately following the festival for infractions committed during it. This procedure took place befo re the Ekklesia, but did not carry with it any penalty beyond censure. Two years later he re sumed the case by initia ting a public suit which could carry a heavy penalty. At the beginning of the speech that he composed for trial, Demosthenes explains that he l odged a public suit against Meid ias so that everyone would know that he was acting out of Athens best interest s and not attacking Meidias for personal gain.
18 To form an accurate interpretation of this speech, we must examine two controversial topics. There has been disagreement about the procedure Demosthenes used to bring the dispute to court. First, some have cl aimed that he initiated a suit of hybris while others that he either brought a suit for impropriety at a festival or it remained a probole. The actual legal charge and the procedure which Demosthenes used to prosecut e Meidias are important since they affect our understanding of his rhetorical arguments. Fo r instance, if Meidias was not charged with hybris why does the case read like a graphe hybreos ? Whether this was a graphe hybre s or a probole, we must resolve if it was delivered at all. Because one of the reasons Demosthenes may not have delivered the case is that he did not think it would have been successful, whether or not the case was delivered affects how we must read the strength or wea kness of the case. If this case was not delivered it is a less reli able source for masculine ideology. Harris argues that the case be gan as a probole before the Ek klesia immediately after the festival, but then was next pursued as a graphe hybreos when presented to the court. Demosthenes, however, lists some of his options, and even mentions that Meidias will claim that he should have prosecuted him with a private case to recover damages and a graphe hybreos for the assault (25-28). MacDowell, as a result, concludes that the probole was indeed the proper name for a suit which came to the court after init ially lodged as such before the Ekklesia (1990: 13-17). Similarly, the apagoge is another example of an initial procedure that lent its name to resulting legal action. Demosthenes accuses Meidias of hybris constantly throughout the speech, but he states that the graphe hybreos was a suit he could have but did not bring. Furthermore, because of the precedent for calling proceedings by their initial phases there is reason enough to accept MacDowells interpretation that this was not a graphe hybreos as Harris claims, but a probole for offences committed during the festival.
19 Many doubt whether Demosthenes ever brought Meidias to court because Aeschines alleges that he sold the case for thirty mnai.1 Aeschines comments have often been interpreted to mean that Demosthenes agreed to settle the cas e out of court. Scholars also infer from internal evidence that the speech was never completed. As MacDowe ll sums up, the laws presented in sections 94 and 113 have no explanation and seem to be irrelevant; Demosthenes twice uses the metaphor of life as an eranos loan without acknowledging his repetition; and in consecutive sections Demosthenes repeats a list of Meidias supporters as if he had not mentioned them before (1990: 23-28). Harris argues that the stylistic problems are insignificant and calls into question the truthfulness of comments Ae schines expressed in court.2 Since the scholiasts do not express concern over Demosthenes style, Harris doubts that we lack sufficient reasons to call into question the delivery of the speec h. Additionally, since so much time elapsed between the two cases, most jurors would not have remembered th e case against Meidias, and therefore Aeschines was free to take liberties with the truth. Fi nally, if Demosthenes dropped the case before the anakrisis, then he could not have wr itten a speech that displayed clear knowledge of Meidias defensive strategies. If, on the othe r hand, he dropped th e case after the anakrisis, he would have suffered atimia Surely Aeschines would have men tioned that Demosthenes suffered atimia especially if it was a result of the very case which he had alread y mentioned. So, one can safely conclude that 1 Aes. 3.52 : (and you know already about the affair with Meidias and the blows he received while acting as a choregos in the orchestra, and that he sold for thirty mnai the hybris against himself and the decision of the demos in which they convicted Meidias). 2 Harris 1989: 117-136; cf. Ober 1994: 85-108.
20 Demosthenes did not drop the case. Harris o ffers a simpler explanation for Aeschines statement. Because both the prosecutor and the defendant had the opportunity to propose penalties following the conviction, Aeschines could either have b een referring to a penalty that Meidias had proposed and paid following his conv iction or the penalty that Demosthenes had proposed. Since Demosthenes reiterates that Medias deserves death, it is hard to imagine that Demosthenes proposed a penalty of less than a single talent, but it is not impossible. I believe that the speech was delivered at trial for a probole against Meidias and that he was convicted but only forced to pay a penalty of 30 mnai. Internal evidence supports this outcome. Demosthenes lists three other ex amples of men who have been convicted by probole, one of whom had to pay a fine, one died before he could be senten ced, and the third was condemned (175-183). Since the offender w ho was condemned whipped free people while marching in a procession, he went be yond impropriety and into the realm of hybris even more than Meidias had. Although Demosthenes uses thes e examples to prove that Meidias deserves a heavy penalty, only one involved a capital penalty. Therefore it is reasonable to infer that the probole usually resulted in only a fine. Aeschines probably referred to the penalty that the jury imposed upon Meidias as a payment in order to attribute pecuniary motives to Demosthenes. Demosthenes paints Meidias as the worst sort of man: one with no inclination to do good but a constant need to act against the best interests of hi s city and fellow citizens. This portrait is clearest when Demosthenes contrasts Meidias acti ons with those that he considers proper. The goal of each detail is to prove repeatedly that Meidias contravenes the behavior prescribed by Athenian popular morality; particularly that he lacks self-restraint and moderation. This entire speech aims to show that Meidias was a hubristi c man, a coward, and a threat to the democracy
21 in his old age, the time of life when a man conventionally should have been at his most restrained and circumspect. The core of this case stems from a punch, but Demosthenes never allows for the possibility that this punch was onl y a punch: instead it was hybris There are elements to hybris that go beyond merely striking another. What sets a hubris tic attack apart from an average attack can be almost imperceptible details about the transgre ssors demeanor, how he speaks, whether he strikes on the face or elsewhere (72). Meidias exhibited signs of hybris and Demosthenes claims that he acted with self restraint ( s phrona) by deciding to take the cas e to court when he could have hit Meidias back (74). Modern readers may be unimpressed with the severity offense, and indeed Demosthenes seems to be defending his honor when he discusses examples of hybris in which the victims responded more vigorously than he did (70-76). In two cases, th e man who had been the victim of hybris killed his attacker in response to offenses that occurred at private parties where the participants were drinking. Demost henes, by contrast, was a victim of hybris in public at the hands of a sober and insolent aggressor. St rong drink is one of the mitigating factors for hubristic behavior; so because Meidias was sober wh en he attacked Demosthenes, this incident demonstrates the sort of man he is even without outside influences. On the one hand, Demosthenes defends his own masculine honor by sympathizing with those who were not as restrained as he and killed those who dishonored them. On the other hand, he delicately avoids the uncomfortable suspicion that fear prevented him from resp onding to a physical attack more aggressively by subtly praising his own self-rest raint, thereby turning his own possible weakness into strength of character. Indeed, how could anyone question the strength of Demosthenes character when he chose to act on behalf of the la ws rather than respond to force with force?
22 Cohen argues that some level of violence was a common and acceptable part of elite feuds.3 In his view, the law courts served as an open forum in which private enmities between elite members of Athenian society were played out in front of juries. Because violence, along with drunkenness, sexual rivalry, and verbal insults were a we ll-known part of disputes among the elite, the prosecutor in a case of violence often had to prove not only that he had been attacked but also that the violence he had suffered mer ited a conviction an d its accompanying penalty. According to Cohens analysis, De mosthenes found himself in a no-win situation because this speech betrayed tw o facts which were fundamentally at odds. On the one hand, Demosthenes was a member of the same leisured class as Meidias and participated in the agonistic struggle for honor. On the other hand, he claims that he did the right thing by taking the case to court rather than res ponding with violence. In Cohen s view the jury would not have sympathized with Demosthenes position. Theref ore, on the basis of Aeschines remarks cited above and his own ideas about the nature of violence in Athens, Cohen concludes that Demosthenes settled the case out of court. As we have already seen, however, there was no way for Demosthenes to drop his case without suffering atimia so Cohens conclusions based on this case are suspect. Herman, by contrast, argues that violence wa s in no way an acceptable part of Athenian society.4 Herman contrasts the ideal of instant an d disproportionate revenge and the ideal of self-restraint and legal recourse. He proposes that the civilized ideal had won out completely and the primitive ideal, which would have required Demosthenes to hit Meidias back immediately, 3 Cohen 93-101; cf. Fisher 1998: 68-97. 4 See Herman 1993, 1994, 2006.
23 no longer held any weight.5 If violence was wholly unacceptable Meidias actions would have been reprehensible, and because Demosthenes had won the initial probole it is reasonable to assume that he would have won before a jury, as well. If Herman is right about the unacceptable nature of violence, however, Demosthenes comment s that seem to explain why he did not react more violently and quickly make less sense. Furthermore, if the punch were sufficient for a conviction Demosthenes would have focused more on it, so Hermans analysis is also flawed. Ober provides a nuanced analysis of these issues that does not suffer from the same problems as those of Cohen and Herman. Ober cl aims that standard ethi cs require instant and disproportionate revenge, while coop erative ethics require a victim to take his case to court and forego personal vengeance in favor of public redre ss. According to Ober these two ideologies worked together. While cooperative ethics took precedence in public disputes, standard ethics were still at work in private situations. Cooperative ethics dominated public matters because through that system of values citizens could obt ain equality through the laws though they did not have equality of means. Obers ideas are most useful in analyzing Demosthenes 21. If these two sets of ethical standards operated simultaneous ly we can understand why Demosthenes provided a mild apology for his actions, yet was still able to gain a conv iction worth 30 mnai. Furthermore if these dueling ideologies were both current, as Ober claims, then it makes sense that Demosthenes spends so much time through this speech on Meidias crimes against the city and her other citizens and so little on the punch itself. Two prior incidents relate closely to the actua l charge lodged against Meidias and concern men, who were still allowed to compete as choristers, even though they had neglected to perform their military service (58-60). Although their co mpetitors were angry at them for illegally 5 Herman 1994:102.
24 competing, the legal choregoi were so pious and metrioi or moderate, that they did not interrupt the festival to prevent their unlawful compe titors from participating. Meidias embodies the opposite of this ideal: he does not think e nough of the festival, nor the laws, nor the demos nor even Dionysos to restrain himself from acco sting Demosthenes for little or no reason whatsoever.6 Where others refused to disturb the fes tival for their own benefit, Meidias must commit hybris for no benefit beyond his own pleasure. De mosthenes suggests that an acquittal will also set a dangerous precedent for future chor isters and harm the fairness of the competition. Thus, he renders the dispute to be not just abou t a punch, but an issue that really does merit a jurys attention. Tampering with dramatic competitions was only one of Meidias crimes. Demosthenes reiterates that Meidias lifelong villainy should help to convic t him before reading a list of his crimes to the jury (128). Demosthenes claims th at he would be worried if Meidias had lived an otherwise restrained and moderate lifestyle and had committed hybris against him alone. If that had been the case Demosthenes would not have b een able to convince th e jury of Meidias crime. As things do stand, however, Demosthenes claims that he is concerned that, since Meidias has committed so many other serious crimes, the jury might think Demosthenes presumptuous for prosecuting him for such a sma ll one (129). This sec tion provides a perfect segue into the list of offences while it acknowledges and plays on the lightness of the offence at hand, making that complaint against Demosthenes case seem slightly ridiculous. Of course the list of offences does not survive, but we may assume that each one of them followed the rhetorical plan of the rest of the speech and served to demonstrate both Meidias 6 61:
25 lack of self-restraint and gene rally immoderate behavior. In addition these offences strengthen Demosthenes case that Meidias deserves enmity from the jury because of his life of hybris Demosthenes seeks to show that, even if the punch he received was not significant in itself, the jury should take this opportunity to punish a man who has earned it not only by punching a rival at a festival, but in ev ery aspect of his life. Demosthenes introduces the metaphor of lif e as a loan to demonstrate how the demos should treat men like Meidias. Demosthenes firs t uses the metaphor that if a man has been moderate and helpful he deserves to be treate d that way in return (101). If a man has been forceful and inconsiderate to his fellow citizens he deserves that same treatment himself. When he has described life as a loan Demosthenes addr esses himself to Meidias directly, dramatically telling him that he has accrued in terest on the latter so rt of loan. Demosthenes uses the metaphor again to suggest that a man who is shameless and hubristic ( ) deserves to be repaid in kind (185). The loan metaphor reinforces the legitimacy of a serious penalty in return for what the jury may have been tempted to view as minor crime. In addition the repetition of the lo an metaphor seems to fit in both pl aces. Demosthenes first uses the metaphor before he lists Meidias offences, and repeats it after. It is possible that he used the metaphor twice so that he could make sure that the image of life as a lo an was already in the dikasts minds before he listed Meidias offences, and he reiterated the metaphor at the end of the speech when Meidias contributions to such a loan would be perfectly clear. Perhaps the most heinous exam ple of Meidias overweening hybris is how he treated the arbitrator Straton (83-101). Straton, a poor older man without politic al ambitions, was the arbitrator for a case between Demosthenes and Me idias that took place years earlier. Straton ruled in favor of Demosthenes by default when Meid ias did not appear for the case. Meidias first
26 tried unsuccessfully to bribe Strat on to overturn his ruling, then he us ed political trickery to bring a case against Straton in his absence and have him disfranchised though the man had done nothing more than justly perfor m his duties as an arbitrator While Demosthenes may be distorting details of the disput e between Straton and Meidias,7 this anecdote holds two key features: the most important point was that Meidias was a threat to every Athenian citizen, but in addition Demosthenes uses the ages of the part ies involved to make a multi-layered point. When Straton came to the platform, he did not do so to testify. Because he had suffered atimia, he was not allowed to prov ide testimony before a jury. Meidias misused his own citizenship rights to deprive Straton of his. De mosthenes calls on the deepest pathos possible to illustrate the danger Meidias poses to the demos (95-97). The jury could easily sympathize with Straton: he was a poor man, like many of them would have been; he had served on military campaigns when called up for service, as they had; Straton was an upright citizen who had refused a bribe and instead of being rewarded for his integrity he was depr ived of his citizenship rights. An average Athenian mans citizenship rights were a main source of pride, and a poor man held his equality under the laws as tightly as a rich man held his personal honor.8 Meidias ability and willingness to use his wealth, power, and influence to deprive an average man of what he held most dear would have been one of the most damning points in De mosthenes oration. As Demosthenes made this point Straton stood nearby as visible proof of the results of Meidias behavior. 7 According to MacDowells reading of section 91, Straton lo st his appeal before a jury, which implies that he was not as blameless as Demosthenes claims. Whether he rela tes the story accurately or not the point of the story remains the same. 8 Ober 1994: 98.
27 To be an arbitrator Straton must have been at least sixt y years old. Demosthenes calls Straton up to the platform in order to show clearly the difference between an older man who knew how to behave properly and Meidias who still behaved as a child. Though he was younger than Meidias, Demosthenes portrays himself as wise beyond his years while Meidias has failed to grow up. Demosthenes brings up age again wh en he claims that he is thirty-two while Meidias is perhaps a bit younger than fifty (154) Harris has argued very convincingly that Demosthenes could not have been as young as th irty-two, but was probabl y closer to thirtyeight.9 Harris disagrees with those who claim this wa s a scribal error and attributes this lie to Demosthenes desire to make his own liturgical record seem much better than Meidias. Ober agrees with Harris estimation but adds that Demosthenes may also be subtly comparing himself to one of the young men mentioned above who de fended himself by killing the older man who committed hybris against him.10 I would add that Demosthenes makes age an issue in an attempt to draw a comparison between himself and Meid ias. Although Demosthenes is a young man, he acts with self restraint, a characteristic more typical of older me n, while Meidias acts like a youth rather than a man of his more advanced years. Since youth was often regarded as a contributing factor in hybris when Demosthenes accuses Meidias of acting like a youth (e.g., 18, 131, 201) he is also attempting to add cred ence to his allegations of hybris against an older man. Of course, Meidias not only acts like a youth bu t is also very wea lthy, one of the other primary causes of hybris But Meidias wealthy hybris exceeds that of other men. Most rich men publicly submitted to the decisions of the demos even if they priv ately reviled them. Demosthenes shows that Meidias cannot even do that as he discusses his beha vior after the initial 9 Harris 1989: 24-26. 10 Ober 1994: 96.
28 probole. Most men would have toned down their actio ns after a public censur e of that sort, but Meidias does the opposite (199). Instead Meidia s now more than ever speaks before the Ekklesia and proposes laws so th at he can show that he was not harmed by the decision of the Ekklesia. Meidias poor behavior in the Ekklesia also demonstrates his hybris. Demosthenes states that he is violent, shameless, a nd that he thinks big ( 201). In the context of his arrogance before the Ekklesia, Meidias shames the demos by thinking big when he should submit to their disapproval. Here there is a so lid link between thinking big and hybris As Demosthenes lists Meidias faults at 201 he does not mention hybris while he does mention thinking big. If we accept that thinking big and hybris can be synonymous, as Cairns claims, this usage both fits Cairns definition and Fishers de finition, which requires the intent to shame. By this point in the speech, members of the jury must have b een tempted to convict Meidias if for no other reason than to prove he was no better than they and Demosthenes and Straton. One would be tempted to believe that a man bold enough to punch Demosthenes in the face in public and disregard the demos would be us eful to the city in other ways, perhaps as a brave soldier who would scorn enemy battle lines as he scorns social norms at home. But we should not be surprised when we find that Demosthenes does not allow his opponent a single redeeming quality. Demosthenes introduces Meidia s as a soldier and rela tes the following story about his service in the cavalr y on a campaign to Argoura (132-135). He brought with him such fancy items, like golden cups, expensive clothes, and a silver saddle, that his fellow cavalrymen taunted him. The mockery so enraged Meidias th at he accused his fellow soldiers before the Ekklesia upon his return. This, at least, is how Demosthenes cl aims to have heard the story while serving as a hoplite. Meidias deficiency as a sold ier does not end with pampering
29 himself and attacking his colleagues. After di scussing Meidias use of his wealth for his personal luxury rather than for the benefit of the c ity the charge becomes cowardice (160-167). Demosthenes asserts that Meidias volunteered for a trierarchy in order to avoid serving in the cavalry again. When the call for cavalry was rescinded, however, Meidias elected to send a metic in his place instead of lead ing his own trireme. Demosthene s calls this behavior unmanly cowardice. The charge of unmanliness is re peated in section 172, this time set alongside wickedness and evil.11 Because Meidias is useless as a sold ier, his masculinity is suspect. One cannot call the boldness necessary to punch a rival in the face before witnesses courage if that same boldness does not translate into success in battle. These anec dotes prove that Meidias has a prohairesis or predisposition, towards hybris alone, and no propensity for courage. With a predisposition for hybris and the wealth and will to indulge his inclinations Meidias is not only completely useless to the city but is a serious danger, as well. It is also significant that Demosthenes se rved as a hoplite while Meidias was in the cavalry. As we have seen the hoplite is the id eal form of Athenian masculinity, so it is no accident that Demosthenes mentions that he was in that branch of the military while his opponent served in the cavalry, the branch dominated by the elite. Demosthenes rev eals his own status as a hoplite for two reasons. First, he portrays hims elf as the ideal man willing to fight side by side with his fellow citizens; second as a hoplite he w ould have been physically strong. The contrast between the image of Meidias who was bold, ye t cowardly, and Demosthenes who was modest and willing to stand with his fe llow citizens would have been a powerful one to the jury. Also, as a hoplite, Demosthenes would have been strong enough to defend himself against Meidias, in theory at least. Because he could have defended himself against the bully physically but instead 11 160: ; 172:
30 chose to take the case before a jury proves that it was self-restraint alone, rather than fear, that prevented Demosthenes from fighting back immediately. Demosthenes record as a hoplite did have at least one small blemish. Euktemon prosecuted Demosthenes for desertion, allegedly at Meidias bidding as retribution for this probole (103). Demosthenes does not deal with this case when he first brings it up, but says only that he did not need to answer the ch arge since the man w ho brought it suffered atimia for failing to proceed with the case. He indicates that Meidias would attempt to destroy anyone who sought justice from him.12 Therefore while Meidias paid others to prosecute Demosthenes for desertion for selfish motives, Demosthenes would consider himself a deserter from the battle lines of justice if he did not continue prosecuti ng Meidias in the face of such hardship.13 If the jury has accepted Demosthenes account of events up to this point they can hardly help but agree that to prosecute Meidias would be equivalent to fightin g for justice, especially given his ability to destroy less wealthy and powerful men like Strato n. The metaphor of Demosthenes as a soldier in the ranks of justice reinforces the image of Demosthenes as a hoplite and the corresponding point that he stands with the demos and is strong enough to help himself against a bully like Meidias. Though Demosthenes may have been physically able to stand up for himself, he could not stand alone in a court battle. By claiming a position for himself in the battle lines of justice Demosthenes asks the jury to stand beside him. Only by uniting as a hoplite force able to stand 12 (If someone whom Meidias committed hybris against should think it right to have justice and not endure in silence, he would be destroyed as an exile and in no way let off, but instead he would be seized in a desertion trial and flee from a charge of murder and be all but nailed up.) 13 120: ,
31 in unity before a common enemy does the demos have the ability to save itself from men like Meidias. Through the course of this speech Demosthe nes uses accepted social conventions to construct two vastly different models. The first model is of the ideal man who embodies Athenian masculine virtue. The ideal man is a hoplite who stands with his fellow citizens, practices self restraint and mode ration, uses his abilities to uphol d the city, and submits to the laws. Of course Demosthenes nearly embodies the masculine ideal he constructs, while Meidias embodies the opposite. He is a coward, immoderate and hubristic at every turn, he abuses his abilities and possessions to dest roy smaller men, he submits to no one. A vote for conviction upholds masculine ideology, while a vote for acquittal is a vote against everything that makes an Athenian man an Athenian man.
32 CHAPTER 3 AESCHINES ORATION AGAINST TIMARCHOS While Demosthenes 21 dem onstrates what happ ened to men who allowed their masculinity to rage out of control, Aeschines 1 shows masculinity gone soft. After examining the background of the speech I will turn to the text to analyze how Aeschines portrays Timarchos as mastered by his desires rather than mastering th em. Aeschines presents a multi-pronged attack on Timarchos that centers on the theme that Timarc hos did not have the self-control necessary to be a useful adviser for the city. Aeschines pr oves this point by alleging that Timarchos was a prostitute, that he squandered his patrimony, and that he then began us ing civic corruption to make the money he needed to satisfy his urges. This theme moves from the inside outward as Timarchos first devours his body, then his own po ssessions, then those of the city. Though Aeschines never calls him a kinaidos directly, that charge lurks behind each of the others he presents as he continually portrays Timarchos as a man who lacked se lf-control and sufficient masculinity. When Aeschines prosecuted Timarchos in 346/345 under a dokimasia t n rhetor n, it was in response to a public suit Timarc hos had brought against him, as he admits but he also admits that private hatreds often set right many public matters.1 He does not shy away from his true motivations: Timarchos attacked him in court, and he defends himself by prosecuting Timarchos. Their dispute arose from their service together on the embassy to Philip II of Macedon in early 346. Aeschines had been a major proponent of peace with Philip while Timarchos and his ally, Demosthenes, were less trusting of their north ern neighbor. The embassy established the Peace of Philocrates, but when the ambassadors retu rned, Demosthenes anti-Philip camp began 1
33 prosecuting supporters of the treaty for acceptin g bribes from Philip and mishandling their responsibilities as ambassadors.2 Timarchos and Demosthenes filed charges against Aeschines for misc onduct, but they may not have expected the form his response would take. He could have launched a similar charge either against Timarchos or Demosthenes since both had been present on the embassy. Aeschines chose instead to file a dokimasia against Timarchos, alleging that he had violated the laws governing rhetors. Th ere were four types of dokimasiai .3 As an official entered office he underwent a dokimasia at which any citizen could speak against his fitness as a candidate. Young men underwent a dokimasia to decide if they were sons of citizens and fit to become full citizens themsevles. Invalids also underwent dokimasiai to decided if they should receive public aid. When applied to rhetors, the dokimasia took place not before, but af ter the citizen addressed the Ekklesia, by any Athenian who charged him with being unfit to speak. The four possible charges that Aeschines lists as grounds to disfranc hise a rhetor are first failure to perform filial duties or abuse of parents, second avoidance of required military service or cowardice in battle, third prostituting oneself, and f ourth squandering ones patrimony (28-32). These each imply a lack of self-control or concern about the customs of the city th at disqualified a citizen from addressing the Ekklesia. Aeschines 1 has been studied most because the main charge Aeschines levels against Timarchos is that he had been a prostitute. A lthough Aeschines devotes mo st of his attention to the accusation that Timarchos prostituted himself in his youth, his accusations do not stop there. He also accuses Timarchos of squandering his patrimony. Like Demosthenes 21, Aeschines 1 2 See Buckler and Cawkell for additional information on the Peace of Philocrates 3 Hansen 258-9.
34 uses two separate charges to prove a single case. While Demosthenes 21 seeks to prove hybris in order to gain a conviction for impiety at a fest ival, this speech uses the charges of prostitution and squandering inheritance together to prove that Timarchos lacked the self-control necessary to be a useful adviser to the polis Aeschines builds his case aro und Timarchos chief failing as a citizen and a man: he was, to his core, immoderate and incapable of controlling himself. To prove that primary fault Aeschines describes many other failings that would seem to be thrown together haphazardly if they were not tied together by Timarchos essential flaw. Although Aeschines hints that Timarchos failed in his filial duties when he sold property where his mother wanted to be buried, the tw o charges that occupy most of the text are prostitution and wasting inheritance. The char ge of prostitution both occupies the bulk of the speech and is mentioned first; so it is the most re asonable place to begin. To be successful in his charge of prostitution, Aeschines needed to prove that Timarchus received payment, had multiple partners, and submitted to penetration.4 Obviously prostitution must involve payment, though payment could be difficult to prove because it coul d come in the form of gifts. Gifts between lovers involved in proper relations hips were common, so gifts alone could not help distinguish a proper relationship from an improper one. Pr omiscuity and passivity helped distinguish acceptable from unacceptable homosexual relationshi ps when payment was not clear. Indeed, each of these three qualifications are met in the speech. Aeschines declares his intent to discuss only the events of Timarchos life after he reached an age sufficient to understand the laws of the city as a young man.5 This passage reveals that, 4 Winkler 177. For a good discussion of the charge of prostitution in this case see also Halperin 94-98. 5 39: (The things which he did as a youth of sound mind and knowing the laws of the city, about these things I will make my accusation, and I think you shou ld pay attention to them).
35 although he was old enough to know the laws, Timarchos refused to act according to selfrestraint and moderation, and it reve als that prostitution is not the primary charge. If prostitution were the issue, it would not matter whether or not Timarchos was old enough to understand the laws. The law allowed men who as boys had been fo rced into prostitution to refuse care to the guardian who had hired them out, but it did not a llow those men to act as rhetors. Aeschines passes over Timarchos alleged clients from befo re he reached an age of maturity because prostitution is not as important to his case as the lack of self -control and moderation that he alleges were central elements of Timarchos character. Prostitution was not Timarchos central fault, instead he was a deficient citizen because he could not control himself and therefore could not help guide the city. When he reached the age of majority Ti marchos moved in with a physician under the pretense of learning the trade, though in actuali ty he was selling his body to anyone he could. Aeschines alleges that in this period Timarchos was hired by citizens a nd foreigners alike, though he names none of them. These numerous encounters illustrate Timarchos promiscuity although Aeschines focuses instead on the me n, whom Timarchos lived with as a paid companion later in his life (40). The first is Misgolas, whom Aeschines describes as otherwise fine and noble, except for his in satiable sexual appetite. Misg olas paid Timarchos a sum of silver to live with him, and Timarchos accepte d without hesitation. Ae schines characterizes Misgolas as young, attractive, dis gusting, and suited to the act th at he chose to perform and Timarchos chose to endure (41). Although, for the sake of decorum, Aeschines refuses to name specific sex acts Timarchos and Misgolas performe d, he implies that Timarchos allowed himself to be the passive partner in a sexual relationship for pay. If to be a free male was synonymous
36 with being dominant and active as Svenbro claims then his role as the passive and penetrated partner effectively emasculates Timarchos.6 Aeschines mentions the sum of silver Misgolas prepaid to Timarchos, but states afterwards that Timarchos did not yet need th e money because he had a large esta te left to him by his father. So, although he did not have any overwhelm ing need for money, Timarchos voluntarily committed these acts and enslaved himself to shameful pleasures. He ate fish constantly, attended extravagant dinners, gambled, and spen t his time with flute gi rls and courtesans, none of which are decent obsessions fo r a free and well born man (42).7 These obsessions, and his inability to control them, destroy Timarc hos as a useful adviser for the city. Aeschines uses an argument from silen ce to help demonstrate Timarchos faulty masculinity. Aeschines wrote out testimony for Misgolas to read before the court concerning his relationship with Timarchos. It is unlikely that Misgolas would have been willing to admit to any of Aeschines claims, but ne vertheless Aeschines calls on him to testify. Fisher (2001: 180, 183) explains that Misgolas would have had th ree options when presented with Aeschines challenge to testify: he could ha ve sworn an oath in denial of the testimony provided for him, he could have admitted to it all, or he could have de clined to do either, which could have resulted in a summons and perhaps a fine of 1000 drachmai. There is no way to be certain which option Misgolas chose, but Aeschines is prepared for each one (45-48). If Misgolas accepts his testimony, the success is obvious: a witness who admits to paying Timarchos for sex would clinch this case for Aeschines. If he declines to comment, Aesc hines claims that the jury should be amazed that Timarchos, who held the more dishonorable role in the relationship, is shameless 6 Svenbro 187-189. Also cf. Cartledge 56. 7 Cf. Davidson passim
37 enough to address the people.8 Finally, if Misgolas denies the validity of the testimony he cannot, according to Aeschines, cover up the sh ameful reputation Timarchos holds for assuming a feminine role. The worst of these for Aeschine s would be a complete denial, but he has already prepared his jury for that possibility. If Misgolas denies the relationship here, it will seem to reinforce Timarchos shame and emasculation for jurors who have accepted Aeschines allegations as true, while any other action would be an unexp ected windfall for Aeschines. Aeschines denounces Timarchos as the least mode rate sort of person possible as he segues into a discussion of Timarchos relationship with his next long-term lover. If Timarchos had remained with Misgolas, he would have proven himself to be more moderate than his actual course of action demonstrates, and he would only have left himself vulnerable to the charge of having been an escort. Instead, after he left Misgolas, he found many other lovers, men whom Aeschines calls wild but does not describe in detail. Because of his behavior Timarchos should not be defined as an escort but as a prostitute. Here, Ae schines allows his pretense of decorum to break down; because he cannot talk around it any longer he comes out and says the word: Timarchos was not an escort, but a prostitute ( peporneumenos, 51-52). Of course, the filthy term that Aeschines displayed such chagrin for having to say aloud is the same one that the law he has already cited uses, and he had no qualms about saying it then (29). Aeschines is not content merely to charge Tima rchos with a crime punishable by atimia he seeks to convince the jury that Timarchos went beyond even that. If Timarchos had acted as an escort he would be disqualified to speak in public but Aeschines seeks to clarify that Timarchos was not even as 8 (If the man who performed the act is ashamed and would prefer to pay 100 drachmai to the treasury so as to avoid showing his own face to you, while the one who suffered the deed addresses the people, then wise indeed was the lawgiver who barred such disgusting people from the platform).
38 moderate in his behavior as a male escort: Ti marchos was a common prostitute, a creature whose offences against proper masculinity offend the sensibilities of moderate and self-restrained Athenians like Aeschines and the jury. The charge of hybris was not given as possible grounds for a doikimasia t n rh torn, but it does help prove that Timarchos lacked the restraint and moderation an Athenian man needed. Aeschines begins this strand of his argument as he explains th e laws during the opening of his speech. According to the law if anyone commits hybris against a boy, man, or woman, free or slave, the guilty party is subject to the penal ties assigned by the court (15). In his comments on the law, Aeschines inserts his own opinion that anyone who hires a boy as a prostitute commits hybris against him. Aeschines gives his opinion here so that he can link prostitution and hybris two charges that did not have a fundamental connection. One function of this conflation is to link prostitution, which implied that the prost itute was penetrated by his client, with hybris so that stating that Timarchos allowed someone to commit hybris against him is equivalent to saying that Timarchos was the pass ive partner in the relationship. After living with Misgolas, Timarchos move d in with Pittalakos, a public slave of considerable means. The two had met at a gamb ling house and were quite compatible since they were both devoted to the same vices (54). While the jury may have been shocked earlier when Aeschines mentioned that Timarchos sold himself to foreigners, the revelation that he had even submitted his body to a slave would have been deva stating if the jury believed it. Aeschines implies that Timarchos was the passive partner by stating that he heard that Pittalakos committed such acts of hybris against Timarchos that he does not dare to repeat them. 9 The effect of 9 (And I have heard that such deeds and hybris were done by that man to the body of Timarchos that, by the Olympian Zeus, I cannot dare to say them to you).
39 Timarchos passivity on his masculinity in this in stance is increased by Pittalakos low status as a slave who could not lega lly court free youths. The relationship between Timarchos and Pittal akos did not last l ong after Hegesandros returned to Athens. Timarchos moved in with Hegesandros, but Pittalakos missed him so much that he made a nuisance of himself around He gesandros house until Timarchos and his new lover went to Pittalakos home to both beat hi m and vandalize his property (56-59). Aeschines calls what they did to Pittalakos hybris (62), which is an example of faulty masculinity in itself. Pittalakos sought redress for these injustices but soon found himself in real danger when Hegesandros responded by claiming that Pittalakos belonged to him. Pittalakos could not defend himself legally against Hegesandros and his pow erful friends and let the matter drop (60-64). Of course a charge of hybris could prove problematic in the present case. If the victim were a woman, child, or slave, the most likely candidate to bring the case on his or her behalf would be his or her citi zen male guardian. Although any citizen could bring a graph hybre s on anothers behalf, there would have been little mo tivation for anyone other than the guardian to go through such trouble, especially when a loss by more than four fifths of the vote would result in partial atimia This explains why no one was willing to take up Pittalakos case. On the other hand, if the victim is an adult citizen male, he can bring the case on his own behalf. Aeschines alleges that Timarchos allowed others to commit hybris against him, but hybris requires intent to shame. If Timarchos intended to shame hims elf, whose business was it but his own? Aeschines accuses Timarchos of committing hybris against Pittalakos, but that incident involved several men, and the gravest threat to Pittalakos was not the violence he suffered, but the allegation that he belonged to Hegesandros rather than to the city (59-64). Although Athenian law allowed the possibi lity of charging a man with hybris against a slave there were no
40 corresponding cases in which Timarchos had as saulted a free person. In addition Pittalakos dropped the affair himself, so it is not surprising that Aeschines does not emphasize this event more. Therefore Aeschines cannot lean on hybris as heavily in the present speech as Demosthenes did against Meidias but he can use it to underscore the low value Timarchos placed on his own dignity. Aeschines explicit statement that Timarchos committed hybris against himself is a culmination of all previous assaults on his masculinity : (185).10 Not only is Timarchos hubristic, but he sins contrary to nature in a way that, if he were female, would be acco rding to nature. This seems to be a clear reference to Timarchos capacity as a passive an d penetrated sexual object. While nature could mean proper as it does here, it did not need to take on that connotation.11 Nature could also mean ones innate inclinations, bu t that does not fit in this passa ge. Timarchos is unnatural not because he acts contrary to his own character: in fact he always acts in accordance with his personal nature. Aeschines constantly shows th at Timarchos is by nature an immoderate and unrestrained person. His actions are, however, unnatural because they defy Athenian cultural norms. This distinction is most apparent as Aeschines praises natural homosexual relationships in contrast to Timarchos relationships. As Aeschines accuses Timarchos of unnatural be havior and endorses other relationships, it becomes apparent that the key difference betw een Timarchos activities and those that were 10 Would someone not seem uneducated if he treated harshly a woman sinning according to her nature but used as an adviser the man who committed hybris against himself contrary to nature? 11 Winkler 171-209.
41 accepted and encouraged in Athens was the elemen t of self-control. Aeschines claims that beauty was praised and still is, but on ly if it is mixed with self-control.12 He draws the distinction between the love for a beautiful and self-controlled youth, which is a mark of a noble soul, and the payment of a citizen for sex, which is proof of hybris .13 This statement simultaneously reiterates the value of self-contro l and Timarchos role as a passive object of hybris Aeschines claims that the laws mandate se lf-control in relationships between men and boys. The laws forbid relationships between boy s and slaves and tacitly support relationships between self-controlled men and boys (139). Aeschines make s a double point by citing this law. Self-control is the key to proper relationships, and Timarchos is de ficient in self-control. That Timarchos had a relationship with a slave de monstrates how little control he had, and how disgusting the results of hi s deficiency could be. Aeschines strengthens the cont rast between proper love and Timarchos relationships with historical and literary examples of proper love. Harmodios and Aristoge iton had the proper sort of love, and their appropriate re lationship trained them to b ecome benefactors of the city.14 Achilles and Patroklos are the first couple Aeschines mentions that demonstrate how poets 12 133: 13 137: 14 140: ,
42 divide proper and self-controlled love from immoderate and hubristic love;15 though their status as lovers is never declared in the Iliad Aeschines claims that it is clear to an educated reader (142). He also cites Euripides for the link be tween self-control and pr oper love (151). Through these references to law, epic, and tragedy Ae schines delivers a clear message: the proper relationship between men is one of self-restraint, while Timarc hos life has been a string of examples of the opposite. The lack of self-control Timarchos has exhibited in his love lif e extends to the rest of his life, as well. This central characteristic both informs the other charges Aeschines brings and explains why a prostitute could not address the Ekklesia. Aesc hines asks what a man who has sold hybris against his own body would not sell.16 This is the fundamental concern behind prohibitions for rhetors against pros titution and wasteful living: if th ey are so immoderate in their private lives, how can they be trusted to run public affairs? Aeschines plays on this fear by claiming that when he finished devouring his body Timarchos devoured hi s estate, and finally the citys funds in his pursuit of pleasure. Therefore Timarchos will not become dangerous to the city because of what he might do in the futu re, but he has already harmed Athens through the things he has already done. While the charge of prostitution held prim acy both of place and space in this case, the charge of squandering patrimony seems to be much stronger. Aeschines anticipates Demosthenes line of reasoning that his argumen t that Timarchos lived as a prostitute and afterwards spent his whole inheritance was nonsensi cal (94). Aeschines responds that it is very 15 141: 16188:
43 simple: Timarchos lived wantonly on Hegesandros dime until He gesandros ran out of money. By the time the cash ran out, Timarchos was no l onger attractive enough to support his lifestyle by taking on clients; so he turned to his inheritance for funds. The order of this argument cannot work. Aeschines implies that Timarchos was an unrestrained and immoderate deviant before he became a prostitute, so he became a prostitute to acquire his pleasures (95). This line of reasoning is obviously flawed because no free Athe nian male with ready money would turn to prostitution before he used up the money he already had. Of course the jury could only hear the case once, so Aeschines can treat the point quickly and move on be fore the jury has a chance to analyze his argument.17 Instead of being based on facts this speech is based on a theme: Timarchos devoured everything he could, from hi s body outwards, in pursuit of his shameful pleasures. It is only in light of this theme that charging a ma n who had money of prostituting himself makes any sense. Timarchos did not merely spend his inherita nce; he devoured it w hole and guzzled it down (95-96). Aeschines provides a rath er lengthy list of properties that Timarchos father left to him, all of which he squandered. There were houses slaves, workshops, and outstanding loans. There was enough before Timarchos used it all for fleeting pleasures that he would have been part of the liturgical class (97). Timarchos, however, was so addicted to fancy food and drink, courtesans, and gambling that he sold the propert y and the slaves for far less than they were worth. He also collected the outstanding debts on ly to send the money right back out, usually for whatever price he could get imme diately rather than the actual value of the property (95-96). Though common knowledge and gossip seem to be sufficient for a charge of prostitution to Aeschines, they apparently were not enough to prove that Timarchos wasted his paternal 17 Todd 171; Harris 117.
44 property, because Aeschines produces testimony to prove these claims and challenges Timarchos to produce the slaves he still owns, if he has not so ld them all (100). Within this catalog of sold properties Aeschines mentions that he has hear d that Timarchos own mother begged him not to sell one of the houses so that sh e could be buried there, but her supplications were not enough to overcome Timarchos addictions (99). Timarchos mother could not address the court, and her guardian would likely be Timarchos himself. So ev en if this anecdote were true, it would be impossible to prove, but Aeschines includes it an yway. His motivations seem clear: he cannot prove that Timarchos neglected his parents because Timarchos inherited the estate only after his fathers death, and his mother could not testify, bu t he can plant the seed of doubt in the minds of the jury members that maybe Timarchos indeed f it three rather than only two of the charges possible for a dokimasia t n rhetor n The most damning testimony given for Timarcho s wasteful life is not from a friend of Aeschines who the jury might expect to lie, but from Timarchos own uncle Arignotos. Aeschines relates the family situation: there were three brothers, one of whom was Timarchos father Arizelos, and the other two were Ari gnotos and Eupolemos. The first to die was Eupolemos, after which Arizelos managed the oikos by himself and maintained Arignotos, who was both blind and physically weak. When Arizelos died and left the prop erty to Timarchos he ceased providing a sufficient living for his disabled uncle. Timarchos even failed to testify on his uncles behalf befo re the Boule at his dokimasia for public support so that he could receive state funds for his maintenance, though at the time Timarchos was on the Boule (101-104). Arignotos testimony is the strongest evidence in the case, but it is no t without problems. Arignotos was Timarchos uncle, which may mean that he hoped to inherit the oikos following his brothers death. Though ideally family relati onships were the most harmonious, it was rarely
45 so. In practice relatives could be among the most serious threats to an oikos .18 Perhaps there was a logical reason for Timarchos treatment of Arignotos beyond his need to indulge himself at every opportunity. Even if there was a reason fo r Timarchos behavior a jury presented with a weak, elderly, blind man could hardly avoid feeli ng sympathy towards such a pathetic figure. Sympathy for Arignotos would necessarily resu lt in antipathy towards the spendthrift who neglected his uncle, and thereby his duties as an Athenian man. Athens did not have a public fund to support spen dthrifts and wastrels as it did to support the disabled, so Aeschines alleges that Timarchos gained public office to extort the money he could not live without. Timarchos served as an au ditor of officials leavi ng office, and in that capacity he accepted bribes to let bad officials off and threatened good ones with legal action in order to extort money from them (107). Th e contrast between a hopl ite who is willing to sacrifice his body for the good of the city and Ti marchos, who leeches funds from the city to support his body is perfectly clear in these sections. Timarchos offences as an auditor were only the beginning, however. Because he had spent his patrimony he had to borrow money at a high interest rate so that he could bribe his way into office at Andros.19 It was while managing affairs in that ally city that Timarchos displayed his lecherous behavior with the wives of the fr ee men in that city to an extent previously unknown.20 Aeschines declines to call as witnes ses the men Timarchos dishonored during that period rather than publicly humiliate them, though it se ems more likely that this is just another 18 Roisman 50. 19On the interest rate see Fisher 2001: 245. 20 .
46 excuse to avoid producing witnesse s. Aeschines allows himself a bit of hyperbole as he claims that it was a good thing for Athens that there were no prospective buyers for Andros while Timarchos was there (108). Aeschines also relates a story from Timarchos time on the Boule in which he was accused of embezzlement. A man named Pamphilos discovered their plot and brought it before the council, saying that a man and woman were stea ling from the city. The man was Hegesandros and the woman was Timarchos. The Boule ini tially voted to expel Timarchos, but when a second vote was held they exonerated him (110112). Apparently the Boule was not voted a crown that year, no doubt, according to Aeschines, because they had acquitted Timarchos. This anecdote reveals that according to Aeschines th e whole city knew that Timarchos was wholly emasculated. In addition to the crimes already listed Aeschines mentions one known occurrence of bribery in which Timarchos admitted to accepting money and cast himself on the mercy of the court (113). Presumably such a case in which Timarchos had pled guilty would be verifiable. As fits with the character Aeschines has fashi oned for him, Timarchos did not respond to that setback with more moderate behavior, but instead went on to repeat the same sort of crime. Aeschines claims that Timarchos spoke out against a genuine citizen at the scrutiny of the citizen lists maintaining that the man was in actuality one of his freedmen. Of course this ploy was just another attempt to gain some fast cash, and it worked. Timarchos received 20 mnai to drop his case, though he had already sworn an oath that it was true (114-115). Following his discussions of Timarchos as a prostitute, a spendthr ift, and a corrupt politician Aeschines moves on to anticipate what sort s of arguments the defense will use. It is in his anticipation of Demosthenes defense tactics that we are faced with a paradox. Aeschines
47 says that if one were to unwrap Demosthenes fr om the dainty clothes he wears while he writes his speeches and pass them around room the men of th e jury would be unable to tell whether they were a mans clothes or a woman s unless they had been told ahead of time. This is on account of Demosthenes womanish ways and kinaidia (131). A variation of the term reappears as Aeschines mentions an elderly Spartan leader who he says (sarcastically) would readily have permitted Timarchos or the kinaidos Demosthenes to prac tice politics (181). The paradox is that Aeschines applies the term to Demosthenes, but never once to Timarchos. We have already seen, however, that there is reason enough to assume passivity in this case from the numerous passages in whic h Aeschines attacks Timarchos through innuendo. So why does Aeschines refrai n from calling Timarchos a kinaidos ? A kinaidos was unrestrained, as Timarchos was. A kinaidos was sexually promiscuous, as Timarchos was. In short, a kinaidos was a shameful individual concerned only with fulfilling his immediate desires, a description that applies to Timarchos just as easily as Demosthenes according to Aeschines account of his life. Aeschines frequently denoun ces Timarchos vices, but those vices are his addiction to food, drink, gambling, and often courte sans. Aeschines implies that Timarchos may have enjoyed his role with his clients by stati ng that he did not hesitate to accommodate them, but he never says directly that he enjoyed it (42). I would propose that Aeschines does not allege that Timarchos was a kinaidos because that would have implied clearly that he enjoyed his role with his clients, and if he enj oyed that role they may not have been clients at all but men who had their way with Timarchos for free. That role would be as shameful as that of a prostitute, but it was not actionable under a dokimasia While the most noteworthy charge in this spe ech is that of prostitution, Aeschines did not win on that allegation alone. Th is case was convincing not becau se of a single outstanding and
48 salacious charge, but because of Timarchos numerous failings that Aeschines presents. Aeschines does not attempt to prove Timarchos had prostituted himself, he instead succeeded in proving, at least to the jurys satisfaction, the theme that Ti marchos began with devouring himself, then moved on to his patrimony, and finally to the city itself. The picture of Timarchos as an unrestrained deviant is powerful because of the links between prostitution, wasteful spending, and corruption as a city official. Pe rhaps none of these charges would have been powerful enough alone to gain a conviction, especial ly without any witnesses for the prostitution charge. Together, however, these charges make Timarchos as faulty in his masculinity as Meidias was. Although his masculinity was not strong enough while Meidias was overpowering, Timarchos is a dange r to the city nonetheless.
49 CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSION In his discussion of violence, Herm an conclude s that the official forces responsible for perpetuating the democracy were not strong enou gh to maintain law and order. Instead, the Athenians relied upon citizen hoplites, legitimat e self-help, and the internalization of suprapersonal values. In Hermans opinion, th e most important factor in maintaining the democracy was the tacit backing of the hoplite cla ss. He admittedly draws this conclusion not from any primary source evidence, but because he cannot see how the democratic system functioned if the citizen hoplite army were not the power behind the scenes.1 I think Herman has underestimated the democracy in Athens by placing it in the hands of the hoplites rather than the whole demos .2 On the one hand, of the 30,000 or so Athenian citizens, only 7,000-8,000 were hoplites (Ober 1989: 129). On the other, Herman assumes that there must have been a coercive force to uphold the democracy, but according to the discursive paradigm internalized suprapersonal values shou ld have been enough to hold the city together under normal circumstances. In extraordinary circumstances, the city could unite under the Boule and prosecute serious threats more efficiently, as it did when the herms were mutilated.3 For less serious threats to the city, like the thre ats that Meidias and Timarchos may have posed, ordinary prosecution was sufficient to define the bounds of acceptable activity. Demosthenes 21 illustrates how excessive masc uline energies could be used against a defendant in court. Demosthenes seeks to show that Meidias is not only a menace to private citizens, but to the whole state. He proves his case by beginning with the offences he suffered 1 Herman 1994: 115. 2 Cf. Cartledge for the importance of the thetes in the democracy. 3 Hunter 120.
50 himself, but quickly progresses in to a discussion of how Meidias has harmed the city. Perhaps the most damning characteristic Demosthenes disc usses is Meidias lack of concern for how the demos views him. A man so preoccupied with his ow n personal agendas and gratification that he disregards the collective will of the city is dangerous and must be censured. Timarchos usefulness was also limited because he put his interests ahead of the citys, but for the opposite reason. While hybris was an excess of masculine energies, Aeschines accuses Timarchos of playing a womans role. The most in teresting charge in this speech is prostitution, but Aeschines also attacks Timarchos as a son an d a citizen. Timarchos robbed the city to fund his own extravagance, while Meidias shamed othe r citizens to amuse himself. These two men suffer from opposite faults, too much and too little manliness, but the result for each is the same: imbalances in masculinity do not harm onl y the imbalanced individual, but the whole community. Through Demosthenes 21 and Aeschines 1 we have seen how masculine values can be manipulated toward two opposite extremes and app lied to political enemies. Because there was the constant danger of prosecution under a myriad of charges, these masculine ideals were more than guidelines to the rhetors w ho guided public policy. While a non-elite citizen could probably do as he pleased in his private life, citizens who held highly visible posts, such as ambassadors, would have had to be considerably more caref ul about how their actions could be perceived. If one of these visible targets allowed his ma sculinity and pride to become too powerful he could end up facing a case much like the one Meid ias did. Perhaps it would not be a charge of hybris but as Demosthenes 21 proves, even if hybris were not the technical charge it could still appear as frequently as if it were. Likewise in the case of Aeschines 1, if a man did not appear to hold his masculine honor in high enough regard he could face charges arising from his deficient
51 masculinity. Indeed, if we accept that masculinity was a spectrum with kinaidic behavior on one end and hubristic behavior on the other, these two cases show well bot h the range of proper masculinity, and that the key featur e that defined the spectrum of masculinity was self-control.
52 LIST OF REFERENCES Buckler, J. 2000. Demosthenes and Aeschines. In I. W orthington, ed., Demosthenes: Statesman and Orator New York. 114-158. Cairns, D. 1996. Hybris, Dishonour, and Thinking Big. JHS 116: 1-32. Cartledge, P. 1998. The Machismo of the Athenian Empire or the Reign of the Phaulus ? In L. Foxhall and J. Salmon, eds., When Men Were Men: Mascu linity, Power and Identity in Classical Antiquity London. 54-67. Cawkwell, G. 1963a. Demosthenes Polic y after the Peace of Philocrates I. CQ 13.1: 120128. ----------------. 1963b. Dem osthenes Policy after the Peace of Philocrates II. CQ 13.2: 200213. Cohen, D. 1995. Law, Violence and Community in Classical Athens Cambridge. Cohen, E. 2002. An Unprofitabl e Masculinity. In P. Cartledge, E. Cohen, and L. Foxhall, eds., Money, Labour, and Land: Approaches to the Economies of Ancient Greece London. 100-112. Davidson, J. 1997. Courtesans & Fishcakes: The Consum ing Passions of Classical Athens New York. Fisher, N.R.E. 1992. Hybris: A Study in the Values of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greece Warminster U.K. ----------------. 1998. Violence, Masculinity, and the Law in Classical Athens. In L. Foxhall and J. Salmon, eds., When Men Were Men: Masculinity Power and Identity in Classical Antiquity London. 68-97. ----------------, ed. 2001. Aeschines Against Timarchos Oxford. Halperin, D. 1990. One Hundred Years of Homosexuality: and Other Essays on Greek Love New York. Hansen, M. 1999. The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes Norman, Oklahoma. Harris, E. 1989. Demosthenes Speech against Meidias. HSCP 92: 117-136. Herman, G. 1993. Tribal and Civic C odes of Behaviour in Lysias I. CQ 43.2: 406-419.
53 ----------------. 1994. H ow Violent Was Athenian Society? In R. Osborne and S. Hornblower, eds., Ritual, Finance, Politics: Athenian Democr atic Accounts presented to David Lewis. Oxford. 99-117. ----------------. 2006. Morality and Behavior in Democra tic Athens: a Social History Cambridge. Hunter, V. 1993. Policing Athens: Social Control in the Attic Lawsuits, 420-320 B.C. Princeton. MacDowell, D. 1976. Hybris in Athens. G&R 23.1: 14-31. ----------------, ed. 1990. Demosthenes Against Meidias London. Morris, I. 2000. Archaeology as Cultural History: Words and Things in Iron Age Greece Malden, Massachusetts. Ober, J. 1989. Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens Princeton. ----------------. 1994. P ower and Oratory in Democratic Athens. In I. Worthington, ed., Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action London. 85-108. Roisman, J. 2005. The Rhetoric of Manhood: Mascul inity in the Attic Orators Berkeley. Svenbro, J. 1988. Phrasikleia: An Anthropology of Reading in Ancient Greece. Ithaca. Todd, S. The Use and Abuse of the Attic Orators. G&R 37.2: 159-178. Winkler, J.J. 1990. Laying Down the Law: Th e Oversight of Mens Sexual Behavior in Classical Athens. In D. Halperi n, J.J. Winkler, and F. Zeitlin, eds., Before Sexuality: The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World Princeton. 171-209.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Seth Boutin was born in Shreveport, Loui siana, in 1983. Aft er being homeschooled through middle school Seth attended Caddo Magne t High School, where he captained their nationally ranked quiz team. After high school Seth went to Baylor University in Waco, Texas. While at Baylor Seth majored in University Scho lars with a focus in classics. Upon graduating from Baylor, Seth began his studie s at the University of Florida. Seth plans to continue his education by working toward his doctoral degree.