Aeschines Against Timarchus

Access

Via Perseus Philologic.

Aeschines. Against Timarchus. Perseus under Philologic. University of Chicago. 7 October (2013). <http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekFeb2011&getid=1&query=Aeschin.%201>

Journal Entries

Would you agree/disagree with the notion that there is a connection between sexual, financial, and political patterns of behavior, as Aeschines (author of the speech) would seem to want us to think? (See especially dokimasia rhetoron, below.) Does that apply to our times as much as to any other time or place? Or is it a cultural construction?

Basics

  • Delivered 345 BCE at Athens
  • Athens from about 461-325 was a direct democracy
  • Law-court speech
  • Speaker-writer-prosecutor: Aeschines son of Atrometus, 390/89-314 BCE, Athenian statesman and former actor
  • Defendant: one Timarchus son of Arizelus, evidently, an Athenian of some prominence
  • Procedure: dokimasia rhetoron ("examination as to fitness to participate in public life") — see below. . .
  • Outcome: Aeschines won. As a result, Timarchus suffered atimia, "disfranchisement," or loss of citizen-rights

Note that in your text, laws, depositions, and similar, indicated by squre brackets, are later additions; they were not part of Aeschines' published text of the speech.

Study Guide

The procedure is an "examination as to fitness to participate in public life," the dokimasia rhetoron. Aeschines alleges that the defendant, Timarchus, has in the past engaged in a practice, self-prostitution, disqualifying him from speaking in the assembly.

So this forms part of a jury trial, with prosecutor (Aeschines) and defendent (Timarchus — but it seems that Demosthenes spoke in Timarchus' behalf) delivering one (lengthy) speech each. The (rather large) jury would then vote. Majority vote decided the verdict.

The main puzzles of the piece are two:

  1. The connection, if any (but the speech seems to suggest there must have been one) between classical Athenian democratic ideology and the dokimasia described just below.
  2. The relationship (if any!) between each of the disqualifications described in the dokimasia law.

Whatever those connections/relationships, they may offer a window into classical Athenian sexual ideology.

The dokimasia rhetoron, in Greek, "scrutiny of public speakers," was a legal process (a jury trial) in classical-democratic Athens, whereby a citizen's fitness to address the assembly could be challenged. Our principal source for this procedure and the underlying ideologies is Aeschines' Against Timarchus. One could, in other words, suffer a penalty if (a) one spoke at meetings of the assembly (the main political body), and (b) had ever done one or more of the following:

  1. Failed to do one's duty in military service.
  2. Squandered one's inheritance.
  3. Mistreated one's parents.
  4. Been a prostitute.
That kind of conduct could also disqualify one from holding political or religious office in a different procedure (not the one in Against Timarchus).

Returing to the dokimasia, if found "guilty," i.e., if found to have addressed the assembly despite the above-listed disqualifications, the defendant would have suffered loss of citizen rights (atimia, "disfranchisement"), as in fact happened to Timarchus. Thus the Against Timarchus is a rich source for the connections between political and sexual (#4, above) ideology.

As regards the sexual side, what the dokimasia addressed was not being or having been a prostitute; it was being a prostitute or former prostitute yet still exercising full male-citizen rights.

As for prostitition itself, while it was OK in classical Athens for non-citizens or slaves to be so employed, it was not OK for a citizen male:

  1. To enter public life after having hired himself out for sex.
  2. To hire out one's citizen son or legal ward for sex, or pay such a boy for sex.
  3. To pimp (or "pander") for a free (i.e., non-slave) boy or woman.
  4. To commit "outrage" (hubris, which can include rape) against any man, boy, or woman, free or slave.
See further entries dealing with Greek prostitution: pornos/porne, hetaira.

While the case has to do with conduct specifically dealt with by the dokimasia, there is related legislation mentioned in Aeschines' text to sketch out the moral-legal framework, for instance, laws to protect boys from predatory teachers, laws to protect freeborn boys from being prostituted, against "outrageous acts" against boys, and other measures (not the dokimasia) having to do with political disqualifications entailed by one's having been a prostitute.

Note that in ancient Athenian court trials, procedure consisted mostly of speeches delivered by plaintiff, defendant, and, at times, their supporters. Contrast the modern court trial: motions, presentation of evidence, examination of witnesses, minimal speechifying.

The present speech was delivered in 345 BCE at Athens. The political background is not of great interest to us except insofar as the speech is clearly intended as a tactical move: an attempt by Aeschines to discredit political enemies, not just Timarchus, but Demosthenes, too.

Aeschines, a member of the pro-Macedonian faction at Athens, faced prosecution by a team of anti-Macedonians including the statesman and orator Demosthenes. (Macedonia was a kingdom threatening Greek city-states to its south.) The prosecution of Timarchus therefore stands as a preemptive attack against opponents.

Just FYI, Demosthenes eventually did try Aeschines for treason. Aeschines won acquittal, though just barely. Later, Aeschines would try another supporter of Demosthenes. Aeschines lost that case and left public life.

In addition to the procedure of dokimsia rhetoron, this speech involves other, very important concepts, also discussed on the terms page:

Note the general structure of the speech: exploration of the legal-moral dimension; a detailed and lurid account of Timarchus' supposedly infamous behavior; thorough exploration of the political and pederastic implications of it all, including a look at poetry and mythology; some pertinent autobiography from the speaker; arguments and counter arguments.

Because a law-court speech, one intended to persuade a jury representing a cross-section of Athenians, Aeschines' Against Timarchus is generally regarded as evidence for classical Athenian attitudes to matters it treats.

Political Terms

Democracy. see Terms page.

Dokimasia rhetorōn. See above.

Senate. That's the translators way of rendering what we usually call the "Council of 500" (boulē), a democratic body (membership representative but election was by lottery — basically, random).

Senate of the Areopagus. Better known as the "Areopagus Council," a highly repsected body consisting of former holders of high office. It had judicial functions but almost no political ones.

Non-elective offices. The nine archonships, officially, the surpreme offices of the state. Except that they involved election by lottery and little or no power.

Elective offices. Offices like generalships, they involved important decision-making functions. They were not paid, however.

"Decrees" versus "laws." "Decrees" (psēphismata) at this time (345 BCE) were assembly resolutions often of limited scope or for a specific issue. "Laws" (nomoi) were passed by a special board of "legislators" (nomothetai) and meant to demarcate areas of just and unjust conduct, and with "permanent and general application" (online Brill's New Pauly s.v. psephi sma).

Additional Questions:

  1. What sort of evidence does this speech provide for ideologies of gender and/or sexuality in classical Athens?

  2. Judging by this speech, did classical Athenians regard it as perfectly unproblematic for men to pursue boys and have sex with them? Did they focus disapproval on the pursuer? Why or why not?

  3. What is Timarchus' "sexuality" alleged to be — if we can even think or speak in terms of sexuality in relation to this speech?

    • What is problematic about conduct or patterns associated with Timarchus?
    • Would conduct like that have come across as "gay" in our society? Why or why not?

  4. What about the speaker? Is an active pederast like Aeschines gay by modern standards? Why or why not? Why does Aeschines even have to go into his own autobiography?

  5. Does this speech tend to confirm or challenge Foucault's / Halperin's / others' ideas on sexuality?

Bibliography

The speech has spawned considerable bibliography and remains a conerstone of the study of (male) sexuality in classical Greece. Scholarly work on this speech and related matters includes:

Dover, K. J. Greek Homosexuality. 2 ed. Cambridge, Mass., 1989. Print.

Halperin, David M. "The Democratic Body: Prostitution and Citizenship in Classical Athens." One Hundred Years of Homosexuality And Other Essays on Greek Love. New York and London: Routledge, 1990. 88-112. Print.

Winkler, John J. "Laying Down the Law: The Oversight of Men's Sexual Behavior in Classical Athens." The Constraints of Desire: The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece. New York: Routledge, 1990. 45-70.


[top]

AScholtz home | BU home | ascholtz@binghamton.edu || © Andrew Scholtz. Last updated October 7, 2013