Aeschines . Against Timarchus

AESCHINES . AGAINST TIMARCHUS introduction Context In 346 an Athenian delegation, led by Philocrates and including Aeschines and Demosthenes, negotiated a peace treaty with Philip of Macedon. Although there was majority support for the peace, there remained elements in the city implacably and explicitly opposed either to the idea of peace with Macedonia or to the terms of the Peace of Philocrates. Th ere were others, like Demosthenes, who saw the peace as a necessary but temporary arrangement. Th e opponents of the peace began working against it from the moment it was concluded. Aeschines was an early target. All Athenian offi cials had to submit to an audit on the expiry of their term of offi ce. When Aeschines submitted to this process after the second embassy to Macedonia of 346, he was accused of misconduct by Timarchus, a minor politician of whose background we know no more than Aeschines tells us and on whose precise political affi liations we are badly informed, and by Demosthenes. On the useful principle that attack is the best form of defense, Aeschines responded by launching a prosecution. He chose Timarchus, the weaker target. Demosthenes was both wealthy and, though not yet forty, a formidable political operator and public speaker. Neither his private life nor (at this stage) his political activity off ered a secure base for prosecution. It is clear, however, from the present speech (and from Demosthenes’ grudging admission at 19.284) that Timarchus had had Copyright © 2011. University of Texas Press. All rights reserved. of Texas Press. © 2011. University Copyright a scandalous youth. Th e speech can be dated to 346/5, though it is diffi cult to fi x the date more precisely. Speeches from Athenian Law, edited by Michael Gagarin, University of Texas Press, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/fordham-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3443534. Created from fordham-ebooks on 2020-04-03 08:13:41. T5358.indb 183 11/3/10 2:03:58 PM 184 aeschines 1 Despite the factual (though not rhetorical) weakness of the speech, which is ultimately no more than a sustained attempt to throw sand in the eyes of the jurors, Aeschines won the case and Timarchus was disfranchised (Dem. 19.257, 284). Th ough Demosthenes was later to treat Timarchus as an object of pity, the reader should bear in mind that it was Timarchus who picked the fi ght. His mistake was to under- estimate his intended victim. By demonstrating his ferocity and skill as a political fi ghter and his credibility with a judicial panel of ordinary Athenians, Aeschines eff ectively checked his enemies’ attempts to bring him to trial, and it was three years before Demosthenes felt able to return to the attack. Th e defeat stung Demosthenes, who revisits the subject of Timarchus repeatedly in his speech On the Embassy (Dem. 19), written for the prosecution of Aeschines in 343; he also in that speech takes a certain grim pleasure in using against Aeschines arguments used by Aeschines against Timarchus. Th e Charge Th e legal action used by Aeschines against Timarchus was dokimasia tōn rhētorōn, literally “scrutiny of public speakers.” Th e term “public speaker” (rhētōr) was applied to individuals who regularly addressed the Assembly. Such people were professional politicians in the double sense that they devoted much of their time to poli- tics and they could hope to earn substantial sums from individuals and groups keen to gain access to their political infl uence, though, unlike modern democratic politicians, they received no income from the state. Th e purpose of the dokimasia tōn rhētorōn was to test the credentials of those who sought to direct public policy in the Assem- bly and to remove from infl uence those deemed unworthy. It was open to any Athenian citizen to initiate it by publicly declaring his intention to subject a speaker to the process, which took the form of a trial before a jury. It is a strangely hybrid action. Th e process of Th e date of the creation of this process is uncertain; it clearly refl ects the distinction, observable in the fi fth but increased in the fourth century, between Copyright © 2011. University of Texas Press. All rights reserved. of Texas Press. © 2011. University Copyright the regular speaker (rhētōr) in the Assembly and formally appointed state offi - cials (especially the generals) and probably belongs to the period of the restora- tion of the democracy in 403. Speeches from Athenian Law, edited by Michael Gagarin, University of Texas Press, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/fordham-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3443534. Created from fordham-ebooks on 2020-04-03 08:13:41. T5358.indb 184 11/3/10 2:03:58 PM against timarchus 185 initiation locates it within the public actions open to any volunteer prosecutor (ho boulomenos) against alleged infractions of the laws. But its title fi xes it within the various processes of formal scrutiny (dokimasia) automatically imposed on the commencement of certain rights or responsibilities (Introduction, IVA). Accordingly, as Todd (1993) has emphasized, the penalty is merely the confi rmation of the formal restrictions automatically attaching (in most cases) to the activities it addresses. Although Aeschines focuses specifi cally on one aspect of the dokimasia, it is clear from his account of the law in 28–32 that there was a list of acts that rendered a man ineligible to address the Assembly. Th e list, which may not be exhaustive, included violence toward or failure to support parents, military derelictions, prostitution, and squander- ing an inheritance. With the exception of the last item, these were all acts for which atimia, loss of citizen rights, was the prescribed penalty, and the penalty for an individual convicted on the dokimasia tōn rhētorōn was likewise atimia. Aeschines charges Timarchus specifi cally with having prostituted himself as a young man but also throws in for good measure the allegation that he squandered his inheritance (42, 94–101). Aeschines cannot formally accuse Timarchus of mistreating his father, who appears to have died when Timarchus was young, but he does draw on associated values by accusing him of mistreating an aged uncle (104). Homosexuality and Male Prostitution Greek homoeroticism is a complex subject that has attracted schol- arly interest in recent years. Th e following summary of the subject is off ered merely as a rough guide. Th ough on occasion we find dissent- ing and condemnatory voices, many Greek sources from the archaic period onward take it for granted that grown men fi nd males around the age of puberty sexually attractive. Although it was possible to be exclusively homosexual (as with Misgolas in this speech), there is no automatic assumption that homosexual tastes preclude heterosexual. Structurally, the practice of homosexuality diff ered from modern Copyright © 2011. University of Texas Press. All rights reserved. of Texas Press. © 2011. University Copyright experience in that there is normally an age diff erence between the partners. As with sex in most societies, there appear to be elaborate proprieties. Th e roles of the partners are perceived as distinct, with the Speeches from Athenian Law, edited by Michael Gagarin, University of Texas Press, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/fordham-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3443534. Created from fordham-ebooks on 2020-04-03 08:13:41. T5358.indb 185 11/3/10 2:03:58 PM 186 aeschines 1 older man as pursuer, the younger as pursued, the older as achieving physical gratifi cation, the younger as providing it. Participation in such relationships was not in itself illegal, and prostitution, homosexual or heterosexual, was a legitimate profession for many noncitizens. But the sale of sexual favors was felt to be incompatible with citizen status and brought an automatic penalty of disfranchisement. No further penalties were imposed unless an individual so barred sought to exercise citizen rights. In addition to the dokimasia tōn rhētorōn, available against public speakers believed to have prostituted themselves, there was also a public action (the graphē hetairēseōs) that could be brought against any Athenian male who infringed the automatic bar consequent upon male prostitution, the penalty on conviction being death. Th ough this may look like a straightforward issue, in fact it was riddled with complications. Quite apart from the obvious diffi culty of obtaining evidence about an activity carried out by two people in private, the common practice of giv- ing gifts to a lover meant that the question of payment was necessarily a grey area. Th e Speech After an opening that stresses the orator’s own moderation, an introductory section (4–6) stresses the importance of the laws. Aeschines then moves into an account of the laws dealing with decent conduct (6–36), arranged chronologically in order of the age of the individuals covered and culminating in those dealing with the moral- ity of politicians and the conduct of the political process. Much of this section is at best only tangentially relevant to the main issue, though it does create a high moral tone and underline the importance of adherence to high standards of decency in public and private life. After a transitional section (37–38) reasserting the moderate and decent character projected by the speaker, Aeschines proceeds to a narrative of Timarchus’ sexual career (39–70) with testimony. At this point Aeschines interrupts his narrative and turns to antici- pation of the defense arguments, boldly tackling head-on the lack of Copyright © 2011. University of Texas Press. All rights reserved. of Texas Press. © 2011. University Copyright any shred of solid evidence against Timarchus (71–94).

Load more