Classical Association of Canada

Keeping It Secret: Reconsidering Lysias' Speech in Plato's "Phaedrus" Author(s): Eva Buccioni Source: Phoenix, Vol. 61, No. 1/2 (Spring - Summer, 2007), pp. 15-38 Published by: Classical Association of Canada Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20304636 . Accessed: 01/04/2011 08:08
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cac. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Classical Association of Canada is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phoenix.

http://www.jstor.org

KEEPING IT SECRET: RECONSIDERING LYSIAS' SPEECH IN PLATO'S PHAEDRUS

Eva Buccioni

Now

human

to teach me then, the country places and the trees are not willing anything, but the town are. But you inmy in have found the for my trip out. For beings opinion drug as out and a young shoot or some fruit, lead animals just they hungry by holding shaking so you, me around all out in front of me in books, will stretching speeches evidently lead and anywhere else you wish. (Phdr. 230d6-el)1

of Attica

?Jo Socrates to Phaedrus, who holds out this promise of oratorical delights as bait to entice Socrates into on his constitutional. As it turns out joining him the drug (<|)cip|xaKOv) that has lured the speech-addict Socrates to venture out into the country, leaving behind his familiar city haunts, seems hardly worth it. For, at least in the judgment of some modern scholars, the speech attributed to the famous logographer Lysias that so enthralls the speech-lover Phaedrus is a "tedious piece of rhetoric [that] deserves little comment."2 This judgment is based on both the speech's content and its style. The speech, purporting to be a "spoken" from nonlover's perspective, argues that the youth it addresses should to a man who is not in love rather than to a lovesick suitor. sexual favors grant Since Socrates' version of the argument presented in his own first speech appears to exhibit not only a "highermoral tone," but also the rhetorical sophistication thatLysias' speech seems to lack, commentators tend to focus their attention on the former.3 Consequently, not many scholars accord Lysias' speech in its own right a significant role in the dialogue.4 In what follows I show that a closer look reveals the "Lysian nonlover proposition" to be of farmore interest than is often assumed. Although its
1 Plato Phaedrusy Nichols's translation (1998); note omitted. 2This harsh judgment isHackforth's (1952: 31). Since we do not know whether the historical Lysias actually composed this speech, itwould be more accurate, yet too tedious, to put his name a always in quotation marks. Hackforth (1952: 17) believes the speech to be Platonic invention. See Vries 1969: 11-14 for an extensive discussion point. 3 Ferrari 1987: 99. The

De

of the evidence and scholarly controversy on this

with which fact that Socrates mocks Lysias' speech and "the obvious irony he laces his analysis" of it in the second part of the Phaedrus are, as Ferrari (1987: 46) points out, two of the reasons commentators have made little use of Lysias' speech in interpreting the dialogue. Martha Nussbaum (1986: 202 etpassim) argues that Plato would not build up a strawman argument only to demolish it later, and concludes from this (and other considerations) that the views expressed

in the first two speeches are positions Plato has argued for elsewhere (namely, in the Republic and the and which he now wishes to recant officially in the Phaedrus (203). Cf. Dorter's (1993) Symposium) n. 16. critical comments on Nussbaum's theory. See also Ferrari 1987: 253, 4 Notable exceptions are Adkins 1996 and Rosen 1969.

15
PHOENIX, VOL. 61 (2007) 1-2.

16 epideictic nature may more to it. It is by loveless sex, nor just advisable to take the

PHOENIX

make it appear to be just a playful gambit, there ismuch no means a merely straightforward, rational proposal for a novel ruse to beat the p?d?rastie competition. Nor is it as a speech's claims at face value yielding reliable character portrait of the nonlover and to believe his promise of rational friendship. Once we scrutinize the supposed advantages of the nonlover and disadvantages of the not his real selling point. Rather, his promise of secrecymakes all the difference. The underlying message is: appear in public to be a temperate citizenwho abides by social mores and laws, and indulge your natural desires in secret. At first one expects of those seem seeking merely the kind of peccadillo glance thismay sexual favors. But it brings tomind thewell-known reaction to the nomos-phusis antithesis depicted inAntiphon the Sophist's On Truth. Thus, the sentiments more importance than underlying Lysias' speech prove to be both deeper and of one to believe. the deceptively plain surface lead might
NONLOVER VS. LOVER lover, it becomes clear that the nonlover's assumed rationality and sobriety are

first glance, the content of the speech seems a jumble of assertions sane nonlover. The lover is maligning the love-sick suitor and praising the as someone while enthralled who, by passion, will promise and do depicted a a to his with his As way get youth. anything passion, however, is temporary state of sickness (nosein), of being out of his mind, he will regrethis munificence ceases and he has recovered his sanity or once his desire (sophronein), (epithumid) mind (231b-d). right The lover is also faulted on two other counts: first,he will ruin the youth as a person. In his jealous possessiveness he will attempt anything toweaken the beloved physically, economically, and mentally to the point of complete isolation and dependency, in order to render him unattractive to the competition (232c-e, 233b, 234a). Second, he will ruin the boy's reputation. He will brag about his conquest to all and sundry and will advertise their intimacy by his infatuated behavior in public, thus revealing the nature of the relationship to everyone At (232a-b, 234a). Yielding to the nonlover, on the other hand, is advantageous in every respect. The nonlover will bestow benefits on the youth freely and willingly, during and after their sexual relationship, because his mood will be constant since a non existent passion cannot cease (231a-b, 233a). Having been accepted on his own
merits, the nonlover need not fear

or ruin the youth (232d). Rather, he will delight in seeing him admired. As he himself is self-controlled and in his rightmind (sophronein),he will "choose what
Rowe mind (1986: 146) points out that sophronein is used here "with its basic meaning, 'having one's sound'." It is also rhetorically intended, however, to suggest an overall image of sobriety.

competition

and

so has

no

reason

to weaken

LYSIAS'

SPEECH

IN PLATO'S PHAEDRUS

17

public opinion, and disgrace, should thereforebe assuaged (231e-232b). In short, granting favors (charin) to a nonlover will bring benefits for the youth now and in his future (233e-234a), whereas yielding to a lover is likely to do serious harm to the youth as a person, to his reputation, and to his prospects.
lysias' speech under scrutiny

is best instead of the opinion issuing from humans" (2.32a5-6)6 and will improve the boy's character (233a). The nonlover does not boast of his conquest and will keep the relationship secret before all (234a3-5). His circumspect behavior in public will ward off ill repute. Any fear the youth harbors of established law,

She believes that the nonlover "give[s] the boy moral advice" and compares the boy-addressee's dilemma of choosing between a lover and nonlover to a modern woman's option of forming strategic sexual alliances to advance her career (1986: 203, 206, 207-208). By contrast,Adkins (1996) believes that Plato despises the Lysian position. He likens the nonlover's proposal of "sexualized friendship" (235) in returnfor economic and social benefits to a beneficial marriage of convenience

On the surface the nonlover's proposition of loveless sex in exchange for benefits may seem a sensible business proposal. Nussbaum, indeed, judges it to be so rational that she credits Plato himself with having proposed it in the past.

(236). In fact, he believes that Lysias' goal "was to promote civic harmony and to advocate the kind of behavior thatwould be likely to sustain long-term sexual to and other relationships of any kind" (237). Contrary what most scholars assume, he holds thatPlato's negative judgment of the nonlover does not rest on moral grounds.7 Rather, he sees it deriving from Plato's aristocratic disdain for themercantile values of themetic that Lysias represents (236). In otherwords, Lysias' prudential proposal, which urges a youth to adopt a cost-benefit approach
that makes the "sexualized

infatuation of a fickle lover, shows that Lysias as a metic is simply "a thrifty bourgeois who could not appreciate the lavish megaloprepeia [magnificence] of the aristocrat" (236). From a democratic perspective, Lysias' proposal forphilia a (friendship) of sexual nature should be preferable, since itultimately fosters civic as stability, just arranged marriages create bonds o? philia that foster survival in an ancient social climate that depends on networks of friendship.8On the other hand, Rosen (1969: 433-435), who believes the nonlover's democratic appearance
6Hackforth (1952: 28, n. 1) comments: "There is a pleasant irony in this twisting of a Socratic ?e^tiaxov ?vxi tt^? ?o?n? xfj? rcap? tc?v ?vGpami?v aipe?aOai?into precept?to propaganda for the sensualist; it is almost the devil quoting scripture, and might well throw doubt on the authenticity of the speech." The 31-32). The phrase at 232a5-6 is a rather devious statement, as we shall see (e.g., 21, 24,

friendship"

of a nonlover

preferable

to the

passionate

so-called "Platonic judgment" is Socrates' prophecy of post-mortem punishment for nonlover and non-beloved (Phdr. 256e-257a). 8 See also Nicholson 1999:116-118, comparing the nonlover option to themarriage of convenience that Lady Russell urges on Anne Elliot in Jane Austen's Persuasion.

18

PHOENIX

to be merely a sham that hides an oligarchic "humanist, hedonist, utilitarian and technicist," also takes the sobriety and offer of friendship as genuine. He believes that it is precisely the proposal of "a rational relationship based on mutual advantage" that ultimately distinguishes the nonlover from the lover.
But can we take the nonlover's self-portrait, i.e., his profession to be a sober,

self-controlled, beneficent character whose only aim is to act in the boy's best interest, to be a trustworthy account? I think we should heed the warning with which Socrates closes his first speech: "just as wolves love (aya7uc?aiv) lambs, so lovers love boys (n??da (|>i?,o6aiv)" (241dl). And just so do concealed wolves protest their friendship (philia). Moreover, Plato goes out of his way to emphasize that this is not the impromptu speech of a particular man to a a particular youth. Rather, it is the carefullywritten epideictic composition of famous logographer (Lysias) recited originally at an informal private gathering, and now read out by Phaedrus to Socrates.9 There is no indication that the metic Lysias attempts to seduce a specific youth, even less that he intends to seduce theAthenian Phaedrus, a mature man.10 On the contrary, the aim of a repeated reading of the speech (228a-b) most likelywould be to titillate and

impress the adult company with his logographic skills, ingenuity, and worldly wisdom, and so towin customers, not for sex, but for his logographic services. After all, logographers pride themselves on being able to convey coherent and put their own cleverness at their customers' disposal to devise themost effective schemes, strategies, and arguments for any given purpose. That honesty, truth,
and moral considerations convincing character portraits for speakers to suit any circumstances. But they also

matters

forensic oratory,where logographers are hired by innocent and guilty alike. As in the public assembly discussed later in the Phaedrus (259e-260e, 272d-273c), and in the people's courts it is not the truth that persuades but appearance. As long as the speech is delivered convincingly in character, "truth" and "facts" are
of interpretation.

might

be

compromised

is, of course,

most

evident

in

Phaedrus, however, is a lover of speeches of any kind. His eagerness to seek the solitude of the country, literallyhugging the speech to himself all theway until Socrates forces him to reveal it from under his cloak (228b-c), demonstrates how much he is takenwith its cleverness. He just cannot get enough of it, even after having listened to it several times. He marvels at the audacity of itsmain ideas (227c5-8) and at the expertisewith which they are put forth (234el-3). But what is it about the speech that enthrallsPhaedrus in this way? Surely not the nonlover's commentators have Some supposed sobriety. pierced the surface image ofthat
9Benardete

words, Phaedrus would be Lysias' lover, not vice versa (but the historical information on both makes this unlikely to have been the case in real life).

(1991: 117) takes it to be a forensic speech, i.e., an indictment o?eros. (1986: 205 with n. 10), indeed, believes that most commentators see the speech as part of Lysias' attempt to seduce "the real Phaedrus" (i.e., the historical man). Yet she is aware (229) that Socrates calls Lysias Phaedrus' paidikos (236b6), a term used for a man's male beloved. In other 10Nussbaum

LYSIAS' SPEECH INPLATO'SPHAEDRUS

19

character already. Ferrari, in particular, has pointed to the cheeky audacity of the nonlover, who "makes no bones about wanting sex from the lad; and in general
gives a no-nonsense

suggest that the audacity that beguiles Phaedrus and makes him flee the confines of the city lies in the devious and illicitnature of the nonlover's proposition. This
evident when considering what actual advantage the nonlover has over

impression

of

breezy,

clear-headed

confidence."11

I want

to

becomes

means

the lover whom he maligns. We have no primafacie reason to consider the self-portraitof the nonlover to be trustworthy.Presumably any loverwould depict himself in similarlyglowing terms. There is also no reason to believe the nonlover to be physically more attractive than the lover. If the attentions and the sight of an aging lovermight be distasteful to a youth,12 then the sexual attentions and the aging physique of a nonlover would be no less so. True enough, the nonlover purports to offer the as as he himself to youth friendship (philia) loving him (231al). But, opposed too to the greatest degree of friendly feelings (<|>iA?iv)for says, lovers lay claim those whom they love (spcbcnv, 231cl-2). That both lover and nonlover want the same thing from the youth, namely sex, seems abundandy clear, despite the we cannot trust a lover's nonlover's rhetorical dissimulations. So, if profession of enduring love and friendship,why should we believe a nonlover's profession of enduring friendshipwithout love?13According to the nonlover, the root of a lover's fickleness lies in his being enthralled by epithumia. In general epithumia refers to "appetite" and "desire," but in the context of physical relations it clearly
"sexual desire,"

of the lover's xou a?uaxo? erceO?nnaav (232e2-3), "desiring the body" of the beloved becomes synonymouswith "desiring to have sex." But when he says that are people assume upon seeing them together that lover and beloved just about
to be

"lust,"

or

"sexual

passion."

When

the nonlover

speaks

"sexual intercourse" (232b 1-2). Once their epithumia ceases, lovers will repent the no did their for beloveds (231a2-3). They good things they longer know whether now want to be friends since seek to quarrel, one and, 232e5-6) they they (philoi, cannot relyon theirkeeping any promises (234a7-8). Since epithumia is used throughout the course of the speech exclusively to
characterize a lover's sexual desire and

together,

or have

just been

together,

for reasons

of epithumia,

this connotes

any sexual desire on his own part.He never directly refersto his own wish to have sex.He neither affirmsnor denies outrightthat he himself feels sexual desire, but
11 Ferrari 1987: 98-99. The quotation continues with specific page references and a comparison with the "nonlover" of Socrates' first speech: u... (see esp. 230e7-231a2; 234c4-5) where the Socratic persona is gothic and gloomy, and at times almost maudlin (see esp. 240a6; 241c2-6)." 12 Admittedly, this point ismade by Socrates in his version of the non-loving argument (240d-e), but the point holds in general. For there is no compelling reason to suppose that nonlovers are of necessity physically more private is preferable. 13Grisw?ld attractive than openly passionate lovers, nor that their sexual behavior

passion,

the nonlover

seems

to

deny

tacitly

in

(1986: 49) believes that u[t]he nonlover's pledges of fidelity are empty."

20 uses

PHOENIX

not to those in great need, but to those best able to reciprocate (233e3-5). The word isbrought out nicely by itsnon-sexual use a few lines earlier ambiguity of the as "granting favors to the needy" (233d5), for example feeding the poor. But it is used most ambiguously in reference to both nonlover (231b7) and lover (231c3-4) can "gratifying" (charizesthai) their non-beloved and beloved respectively. One read this as trying "to please" them, or as "granting them non-sexual favors" in return,or as an inversion of the traditional conception of the relationship between lover (?paaxri?) and beloved (?pcojievo?).16 No matter how one reads it, the very ambiguity of theGreek word allows the nonlover to get his meaning across what he wants and what he offers in return. without ever saying explicitly It is generally assumed by commentators that the benefits a youth could expect were gifts during the relationship, and social, economic, and political advancement. The nonlover's strategyof not specifying the nature of the pay-off when their sexual desire ceases (231a2-3), poiein) for the youth that lovers regret whereas nonlovers never regret their generosity (231a-b). We shall have more to say about the nature of the rewards later. Scholars have already pointed out that the nonlover's proposal is a viable option only ifhe is at least as wealthy as the lover and has equal or higher social influence. Indeed, as Rosen (1969: 434) states, "itwould seem to be most advantageous for the youth to gratify only the wealthiest non-lovers." Yet wealth would not constitute an essential difference
between nonlovers and is, as we shall see, only prudent. He does refer to the "good things done" (eu

periphrases and euphemisms. At the very beginning of the speech, he says that the youth has already heard that he believes that "these things coming about" (yevojuevoovtoutcov) is advantageous forboth of them (230e6-7).14 Later he talks of nonlovers having been friends already before "they did these things (xaCxa) are they did" (233al-2). That both lover and nonlover asking for sexual favors becomes most evident through the repeated use of the common euphemisms charis (sexual favor) and charizesthai (granting sexual favors).15 Lovers feel that they have paid back their beloveds sufficientlyfor favors received (23 lb 1-2). In the end the youth may ask whether he should grant favors to all nonlovers (234b6-7). Moreover, the youth should consider that he ought to grant favors

or not loving loving and one's economic, social, or political status. Evidently
string of generous lovers would seem economically more advantageous than

lovers,

since

there

is no

intrinsic

connection

between

sober parsimonious nonlover who refuses to spoil the youth. A calculating youth might well prefer a besotted, malleable loverwho would do anything to please
In examining the rhetorical demerits of the speech, Socrates later pokes fun at Lysias' opening tomb that can be read in any order (264c-e). lines, saying that they resemble the inscription onMidas' 15 an notes to use of the Rowe with earlier (1986: 136) regard euphemism "favors should be are the rule in as we might expect. granted" (227c7): "i.e. sexual favours. Such euphemisms polite talk, It is exclusively male homosexual love which is being referred to." See also 145, ad 22>lb7. 16 With reference to the nonlover, the last reading was suggested to me by one of the Phoenix 14

referees.

LYSIAS'

SPEECH

IN PLATO'S PHAEDRUS

21

him.17 Thus a nonlover's appeal to a boy's avaricious calculation could even backfire. If nothing so far uniquely works in favor of a nonlover, what is it thatmakes
this

only genuine difference is the nonlover's public behavior and absolute discretion. His "nonloving friendship"will manifest itselfpublicly in a lack of the outward symptoms of sexual passion and love.Hence, no one will suspect the sexual nature of their relationship.
KEEPING IT SECRET

gathering that theywant to hear it again and again?18 What benefits for the future (ttjv uiAAouaav d)(|)?Xiav, 233cl) come from the nonlover but not from the lover? What is the real difference between lover and nonlover thatwill prove of such advantage (auuc^epeiv, 230e7) forboth the youth and the nonlover? The

speech

so marvelous

to Phaedrus

and,

presumably,

the other men

at

Epicrates'

Several times throughout the course of his speech, the fictitious nonlover assures the youth implicitly and explicitly that the real nature of their association Whereas lovers,he says,boast about their sexual will be concealed from everyone. conquests to impress other men and in general make themselves conspicuous

are in control through their infatuated conduct (232al-3, a6-b2), nonlovers, who of themselves, choose what isbest, rather than glory among men (232a4-6). This is to say, the nonlover does not exerthis self-control in subduing his sexual desire, but in resisting the temptation to boast of his sexual conquest. He knows that it is best to forego the pleasure of being envied to safeguard his sexual pleasures by being completely discreet. Consequendy, people do not suspect or blame nonlovers when they are seen conversingwith a youth (232b2-3). In otherwords,
nonlovers know it is best to prevent rumors and gossip by keeping their sexual

relationswith young males quiet, neither talking about them to others, nor giving any indication of them through their behavior in public. Therefore, a youth
should not choose a lover who

will keep silence before all" (o?xivs? aiaxov?jievoi 7ipo??7tavxa? ai(07cr|aovTai, 234a4-5). The explicit promise that theywill "keep [it] secret" (an alternative translation of aico7tr|aovTai) is reinforced again at the end of the speech, when the nonlover advises the youth not to grant favors to all nonlovers ifhe wants "to escape the notice" (XavGavsiv) of others, a term used to connote being "unseen"

brags,

but

a nonlover

who,

"with

a sense

of shame,

or "unobserved" when doing something secretly.Favors granted indiscriminately would not be as appreciated, "norwould it be possible for [him] to keep things
17This point ismade by Griswold (1986: 47). owner Epicrates' house is associated with the luxurious living and gluttony of its previous towhom Aristophanes alludes several times as the epitome of a life of ease and splendor Morychus, and gluttony (Peace 1008). See also Acharnians 887. Plato's (Wasps 506) the house's reputation and picture the guests as sensualists. readers probably would know

22

PHOENIX

secret from everyone in the same way" (234c2, Rowe's trans.). That is,word would get around. It is entirelyowing to the nonlover's discretion and promise of secrecy that the youth need not fear established law/convention (xov v?uov t?v Ka?eGTrjKOTGt, the lattermerely interalia, as though thismight be some 231e2). Mentioning an effective rhetorical move.19 It juvenile worry that is easily dispelled, is one to not miss the be fact that the nonlover does declare the fear make might unwarranted or groundless. Rather, he neatly sidesteps the issue by pointing out that a lover's indiscretion and imprudent conduct is likely to result in negative attention, while the nonlover's prudent discretion safeguards against this. In so he gives the impression that sexual boasting is "considered bad form,"20 doing it the is behavior and that i.e., simply vulgar bragging of lovers that results in that fosters the illusion sexual This relationships between mature disapprobation. men and young males are considered a unproblematic and perfectly legitimate and common practice, but that good taste requires one to engage in them discreetly. This illusion of legitimacy is furtherenhanced by the rhetorical ploy of treating as evidence what one is supposed to be arguing for, namely, taking as given

that a youth will render sexual favors. His only dilemma, then, iswhom he Herein lies the should choose (as being more advantageous to himself) to gratify. audacious twist of the speech. The ancient Athenian audience was well aware that all thiswas merely wishful thinking on the part of the pederast.21 For an Athenian man to proposition anAthenian youth,22 and for thatyouth to yield to him, were hazardous undertakings.
Scholars usually take the reference to be merely to unwritten law, or custom, and hardly worth comment. See, for example, Nichols's (1998: 32, n. 36) note adloc, while Rowe (1986: 146) does not comment on the term. 20 Rowe 1986: 146, ad 232a5-6. 21 For lack of a specific term, I am using "pederast" in reference to someone who seeks sexual intercourse with young males (whether he admits to being an erastes or not). In ancient Greece,

seem to have pederasts preferred attractive teenage boys and older youths before they became bearded (Dover 1978: 68-69), but even much older eromenoi were called pais or paidikos (Dover 1978: 85). seems Hence it should be kept only appropriate. Throughout speaking of "pederasty" and "pederast" inmind that Athenians were not forerunners of gay activism. For the most part they seem to have felt disdain for those who

submitted to homosexual intercourse. This is particularly evident from their in depiction comedy geared towards the general Athenian public (see Dover 1978: 135-153). It could be objected that this is just one of four possible scenarios. The speech could be addressed a to a non-Athenian youth, (ii) a non-Athenian to an Athenian youth, or (iii) by (i) non-Athenian an Athenian one assume (iv), an Athenian an youth. So why should addressing to envisioned here? I be the scenario suggest that (iv) makes the best sense in the youth, context of the dialogue, (i) would be entirely non-controversial and of very limited interest to a non-Athenian

Athenian Athenian

run for his life (as we know from Aeschines 1.43-44). youth would have been well advised to By contrast, (iii) would seem to envision the only legally and conventionally non-controversial option. But why, then, the secrecy and need to escape notice? No need to safeguard the public repute of

a to theAthenian intra-dialogical characters (only the ghostwriter of the audacious speech is metic), and presumably also to Plato's original audience. If, however, (ii) were the supposed scenario, it would or slave who tried to an Athenian likely outrage any Athenian. Any metic, foreigner, proposition

LYSIAS'

SPEECH

IN PLATO'S

PHAEDRUS

23

nor Athenian convention was censorious of a Although neitherAthenian law mature Athenian citizen seeking sexual services fromnon-Athenians, the situation was quite different with regard toAthenian youths. That Athenian men might fall in lovewith an attractiveAthenian pais (boy) or meirakios (older youth) was understood as a tribute to their beauty, and much extravagant erotic praise and seem to have been part of the everyday scene among the onlookers bantering at gymnasia and wrestling schools. But by the fourth century the publicly was far more avowed attitude to sexual activities (as distinct from erotic flirtation) restrained than it seems to have been in the sixth and early fifthcenturies.23 In the wake of two oligarchic coups and the subsequent radical democratization, sexual exploits associated with sympotic culture, clubs (hetaireiai), and elitismwere

regarded with suspicion by the general public,24 Thus around the time Plato was a representative group of Athenians can be assumed writing the Phaedrus to have adhered in public to a restrained, almost puritan, view on homoerotic matters. This is evident from Aeschines' speechAgainst Timarchus,which ismost our present purpose. It is the only extant speech that deals in for illuminating great depth with the prosecution of anAthenian who has rendered sexual services as companion of othermales (hetairein).25
non-Athenian would seem not have mattered. Moreover, it youths, since inAthenian public opinion itwould a an Athenian would make all the other to in that this highly unlikely promises speech

mere metic or to a slave whom he could hire for a few obols (see Halperin 1990: foreigner, much less 107-112, "Appendix 2: Prices"). Even if someone considers (iii) a remote possibility, (iv) is the only scenario that gives rise to a concern for law, public opinion, good repute, and a need for a guarantee of secrecy. 23 Dover 1974: 204-207. The evidence for sexual license in the earlier centuries stems primarily

from vase paintings (570-470 b.c.e.) and comedy (Dover 1978: 7,11,137,146,151). 24 For an account of the changing political and social order of the fifth century, see Ostwald 1986: Even symposia had changed and were less prone to excess by the esp. Pt. II and III (175-524). fourth century. See Peschel 1987: 199, 275, etpassim. Even though Peschel's focus is primarily on the hetaira, i.e., the female (sexual) companion, her account of the changing nature of symposia is of direct relevance, since she provides a wealth of information on sympotic culture in general. 25Aeschines delivered the speech in 346 b.c.e. (i.e., merely two decades after the composition

to undergo scrutiny {dokimasia) and succeeded in of the Phaedrus) y when he challenged Timarchus having him officiallystruck off the citizen list (see Dem. 19.284). Timarchus had forfeited his citizen as sexual as a prostitute in privilege of participation in public affairs by having served companion and his youth, and by squandering his patrimony (Aeschih. 1.29-30). The second charge, primarily used to support the first, is of no interest to us here. Aeschines' goal in byAeschines challenging Timarchus (a notorious figure inAthenian public life and politics) to dokimasia was to prevent him from acting

as co-prosecutor with Demosthenes, who had already indicted his fellow ambassador, Aeschines, for treason. See Adams's introduction (1919: 2-3) and Dover 1978:19-20. This speech is of the greatest value to us, not only because itgives us a better idea (than the literary same-sex relationships and practices, but also because it writings) of the public attitude towards male elucidation that had verisimilitude to persuade an Athenian jury. sufficient crucial judiciary provides The speech's value is readily acknowledged by Dover (1978: 13-14), who frames half of his book on Greek a discussion of it. But his seems to be to integrate his homosexuality (19-109) around goal a findings into reconstructing very broadly conceived Greek notion of homosexuality, derived initially

24

PHOENIX

From the very first, Aeschines stresses that sophrosune is the goal of orderly conduct (eukosmia) that lawgiver and society seek to inculcate in citizens of a democratic state (5-7, 22).26 He does not condemn theAthenian homoerotic tradition that is perceived by some to be part of enculturation (132-136), but insists that relationships of just eros (epcoxa ??kcuov) must be pure, informed by self-control and sophrosune,rather than by intemperance and hubris (137-142). We shall look at details in a moment, but for now let us note that the nonlover of Lysias' speech caters precisely to a public ideal of sophrosune. But he plans to go even furtherby presenting a perfect public image of self-control that is not swayed by the temptations of beauty, while the youth will appear to resist all admiring followers. This public performance of sophron conduct will raise a smokescreen to hide what the pederast reallywants and forwhich he will reimburse the youth, namely sexual intercourse.Hence, this scheme enables them to act in accordance with their own advantage by reaping their respective benefits from a secret sexual liaison while avoiding rumor and gossip thatwould leave
them open to repercussions. Consequently, the youth can be assured that, even

iffriendship does not last, he has less cause to fear that great harm will come to him after having surrenderedwhat he prizes most highly (7iepi kXe?oxov %o\v) to a nonlover rather than to a lover (232b-c). For whether the addressee is a boy an Athenian male prizes most or a highly, namely already young citizen, what his honor, will be safewith a nonlover.27 That is, itwill be safe in a devious
way.

Much
or more such

has been written in recent decades about ancient Greek homosexuality,

homoerotic a mature man relations.28 Scholars role are agreed a youth, that i.e., in the active and

or meirakios, in the passive role, but they differwith regard to what they pais believe was permissible. Dover, for example, believes that such relationships
from far earlier vase paintings (towhich he refers throughout the book, despite an earlywarning that serve as illustration [7]). Since our own focus, however, is on fourth-century Athens, we they cannot need to use his findings with caution. 26 See, for example, North 1966: 105-116, 135-137 on sophrosune as a civic virtue. 27 cannot determine whether the addressee is a boy or a young citizen. Phaedrus speaks of We "a certain one of the beauties" preface (xiva tc?v koi?xov, 227c6) being propositioned to grant favors. In the to his first speech, Socrates starts out speaking of "a boy," immediately corrects himself and 237b2), only to revert to using pais two lines says "youth" (fjv outco 5r| 7ta??, u?AAov ?? ueipaKiaKo?, later.This draws attention to the fact that there is a difference, as theAthenian audience would know,

asymmetrical precisely, involved relations usually

but that such a proposal might be addressed either to a boy or to a young citizen. 28 Dover (1978: 1^2) prefers to speak of Greek homosexuality, rather than pederasty, where "[f]or the purpose of [Dover's] enquiry, homosexuality is defined as the disposition to seek sensory pleasure

a household with a traditional in addition, rather than in preference, to maintaining family life. both erastai and (older) eromenoimight also be sexually involved with female entertainers Moreover, and keep hetairai (see Aeschin. 1.75-76).

sex in through bodily contact with persons of one's own preference to contact with the other sex" (1). I agree with Halperin (1990: 32) that it is problematic to apply our contemporary notion of seem to have a "homosexuality" to the ancient Athenian context. Many pederasts kept male beloved

LYSIAS'

SPEECH

IN PLATO'S PHAEDRUS

25

were considered legitimate if they involved non-penetrating sexual intercourse not the type of intercourse, but the only,29whereas Halperin thinks that itwas
maintenance of dominant-subordinate

was thought neither to experience erotic But theyboth agree that the eromehos desire for the erastes,nor to seek sensual pleasure when submitting to intercourse. According toHalperin (1990: 35), boys "were considered to be sexually inert." In fact, their erotic attraction for the pederast was fuelled by their lack of erotic desire, their passivity and modesty, and by the difficultyof conquering their resistance an elaborate through courtship in competition with other erastai (Halperin 1990: was likely to have. The the 93-94), admiring followers any beautiful youth was to tempt a means of p?d?rastie ploy youth, by gifts and promises of greater to erastes to to and admit the rewards, intimacy yield to his demands for sexual must indeed have been favors.Yet, asHalperin (1990: 92) remarks, "[f]rustration a was It the frequent experience [for pederast]. extremelydifficult and hazardous for a male resident ofAthens in the classical period to gain sexual access to any person of citizen status [or citizen descent]." As one can see from the relevant minors seriously. legislation,Athenians took the protection of statutory Certain legal provisions?for example, restrictingthe school hours to daytime only, allowing only designated teachers and trainers to have contactwith boys, and stipulating that slave attendants must chaperone the boys at all times (Aeschin.

proprieties,

that mattered.30

intended to restrictuncontrolled access to children and adolescents. 9-11)?were If "certain things are done" (7up?xxea0a? xiv') despite these legal provisions, then thosewho have legal control over the boy are to be prosecuted, as is theman who, took advantage of him (13). The law in question is usually referred to as a law
against "hiring out as a prostitute" but the phrase used is eav xiva 8Kuaa0a>ar|

?xaipe?v (13)?it refers, that is, to "recompensed sexual companionship." Even though as a minor the boy cannot be prosecuted himself, he is debarred from ever acquiring the "citizen's right to speak" (14), i.e., to address the people in any public capacity.A separate law against pandering (Tipoaaycoysia) of freeborn children and women can be used against anyone who tries to profit through minors (14). A charge of hubris (u?pic) should be sexually exploiting statutory if any person outrages (u?piCr|) a child,woman, or anyone, free or slave, brought
(1978: 45, 48-49, 52) believes that legitimate eros, i.e., permissible homosexual rela to mean by "just eros"), were governed by four tionships (what he takes Aeschines specific rules. An honorable eromenos (i) neither seeks nor expects sensual pleasure, (ii) does not allow physical contact until the erastes has proved himself worthy, (iii) never permits penetration, and (iv) "never assimilates himself to a woman by playing a subordinate role in a position of contact" (103). From his survey of vase paintings Dover infers that (iv) is accomplished by face-to-face intercrural copulation (91-109). 30 was characterized to by "a certain hierarchical Halperin ( 1990:47), Athenian pederasty According relation of structured inequality between a free adult male and an adolescent youth of citizen status.... a Secondly, the sexual acts performed by male couple had to be congruent with the power-differential 29 Dover

was structured: the alone, according towhich the relation superior partner took sexual precedence?he that is,might initiate a sexual act, penetrate the body of his partner, and obtain sexual pleasure_"

26

PHOENIX

or for any unlawful act against these (15).31 Hubris refers to someone treating with contempt for theirhonor and in violation of their rights. In a general way it
is

or "any kind of behaviour inwhich one treats other people as one pleases."32 As Fisher and, more emphatically, Cohen point out, hubris in a sexual context common misconception apparently shared byHalperin (1990: 93), who believes that "sexual contact with citizen youth did not necessarily require the consent of his guardian and was, at least in principle, obtainable." But if Halperin is talking of a youth under the age of eighteen, no such consentwas legallypossible, because a as was legal minor, incapable of giving legallymeaningful consent.34 But pais, it seems highly unlikely that an Athenian father or legal guardian could consent
him out." Hence, submitting a minor of citizen descent to sexual intercourse involving statutory minors refers to seduction as well as to rape.33 This corrects a

"wrongful,

excessive,

degrading,

abusive,

or

insolent"

conduct

towards

others,

legitimately to his ward's rendering sexual serviceswithout being thought to "hire

would be committing hubris. Athenian law did not forbid a freeman to admire the beauty of a boy and to become his follower. But since the boy is stillwithout authority over himself, a loving admirermay not speak of friendship to him until the boy has reached the

It may well seem odd to Aeschin. 1.138-139). age of being prudent (phronein, us thatAeschines claims that this teaches both man and boy sophrosuneand that If followers the understands Aeschines (139). protects boy having "just eros" that is guided by sophrosuneto be a sexual relationship inwhich the lover stops short of penetration in intercourse, as Dover believes, thiswould certainly amount to letting thewolf guard the lamb. But Aeschines' earlier remark that "the life of a man must be so chaste (katharos) that itdoes not admit of the temperate (sophron) of repute wrongful guilt" (48, my translation) seems to suggest that he is talking of a chaste admirer being admitted as the acquaintance of a chaste boy, rather than of sexual intimacy of any type.3 Needless to say, pederasts might have thought it easier to persuade boys by would "not go a? theway." This may even have been the assuring them that they fashion inp?d?rastie circles. But no distinction between typesof sexual intercourse could have made a difference from a legal perspective, nor does any law define
31 The

a fine of 1,000 drachmae for text of the law and the proper procedure (mentioning also not obtaining one fifth of the votes) is found inDem. 21.47. See also MacDowell 1978: 124-126, 129-132. For an extensive study of hubris, see Fisher 1992: 36-85. 32 Cohen 1995: 144 and Dover 1978: 34-35. 33 Fisher 1992: 42 and Cohen 1995: 148, 151-152. With regard to the seduction of another man's wife, the historical Lysias writes that it isworse than rape, because adulterous seduction corrupts the woman and alienates her from her husband and children (1.32-33). psyche of the 34 Cohen (1995: 157) suggests that in theAthenian system the law o? hubris provided a means of our own contemporary systems is treated as one form of rape, namely statutory rape regulating what in those of

as "defined solely by the age of the minor and the fact of intercourse." Literary depictions of much admired but ideally modest youths include, for example, in Plato's dialogue ofthat name. Autolycus inXenophon's Symposium and of Charmides

LYSIAS'
the nature of intercourse.

SPEECH
In a

IN PLATO'S PHAEDRUS
court Aeschines does not even dare

27
to

"if anyone hires anyAthenian for this act (xa?xrjv xrjv rcpa^iv), he is liable to the most severe penalties" (72). Imagining a sexual role reversalmakes him exclaim (70): "In what excesses of bestiality [?OeXopictc, "loathsome thing"] are we not to imagine [Timarchus and Hegesandrus, who himself served as pornos (common were drunken and alone!" Itwould prostitute) before] to have indulgedwhen they be unthinkable for Aeschines to outrage the court by discussing in public whether the deed was done intercrurally,or whether it involved penetration. When someone is accused in court of his body, to ask the prosecutor having trafficked to "presentwitnesses to testifyexplicitlywhere [the accused] did it,how he did it, orwho saw him do it, orwhat sort of an act it was[, is] a shameless demand" Aeschines. (71-72),-says There seems to have been no legal prohibition, however, against a youth of
citizen status (let us, with Aeschines, refer to him as a meirakios)?i.e., who, at

call the deed (xou epyou) itselfby name and resorts to euphemisms (45). So, for example, he says that the one who "practices this thing" (xouxo rcpaxxcov) is serving as sexual companion even ifdoing so onlywith one man (51). Moreover,

people's

eighteen, had been inscribed in the citizen list?rendering sexual services. But therewere consequences: ifhe did so, usually for rewards, he could be classified as having served as sexual companion (hetairein) and as such would be subject to atimia (loss of honor, in the sense of losing certain citizen privileges). The law stipulates that any Athenian citizen youth (meirakios), or any adult citizen
for that matter, who serves as sexual

(7te7iopveo|n?vo?), is debarred from participation in public and political affairs, from holding religious office, and even from addressing a people's court (18-19, of the shame (u?pei) of his own body, 29). "For theman who has made traffic [the lawgiver] thoughtwould be ready to sell the common interests of the city also" (29-30). If such aman violates the legal debarment, he can be challenged to undergo scrutiny (dokimasia) and prosecuted under a graphe hetaireseosby anyone who so chooses (32, 19).36 Based on the evidence of the ancient sources, it is generally acknowledged by scholars thatwhat prompted any youth, no matter his age, to yield to the importuning of a pederast was the lure of rewards. As we saw, Lysias' nonlover certainly takes it for granted that the rendering of sexual favorsmust be to the advantage of theyouth, and that thebenefitsmust be substantial no matter whether the youth yields to a lover or to a nonlover. We recall that the nonlover does not specify the nature of the pay-off. Other sources indicate that the usual gifts
36 The Aristotelian Athenian Politeia (42.1-5) describes the process for becoming inscribed as a citizen and the two-year military training and service that followed immediately afterwards under the guidance of a sophronistes elected by the people of each phule. During these two years meirakioi a nor be apparendy could neither prosecute, prosecuted, in people's court (very few exceptions applied). For many youths those two yearswould be the first time away from parental supervision. An interesting case of hubristic misconduct during the period of military service is found inDem. 54.1-10 et passim.

companion

(r|xaipr|K(o?),

or as

prostitute

28

PHOENIX

we

ranged frommusical instruments and pet animals to hunting dogs and horses.37 Obviously therewould have been any number of other things, for example sports equipment or hunting gear, that a youth would have found desirable. Another category of pay-off seems to have been services in return,for example, free lessons or (say, in oratory) training (for instance, in themedical arts).38 In keeping with the sympotic culturewith which pederasty is often associated, the erastes would pay for entertainment, expensive dinners, gambling, female entertainers and hetairai, and for the general living expenses of a leisured lifestyle (Aeschin. 1.75-76). Here
can also deduce another connection,

and their clubs. Anti-democratic political clubs (hetaireiat) had gained notoriety in the oligarchic take-overs of 411 and 404. Since many of those involvedwere the latter with club-life and oligarchic tendencies. Yet belonging to one of the many clubs would have been quite attractive toAthenians in general.39 Closely bonded circles o? hetairoiwere as common in the fourth as in the fifthcentury.
part of the leisure-class's sympotic culture, the Athenian public came to associate

namely

to

the

associations

of hetairoi

They supported one another politically and in judicial disputes, came to one another's aid in taking revenge on or intimidating rivals and enemies, and bonded socially and in leisure pursuits.Males of different age groups had their own clubs.

But members of different clubs supported each others causes, for example in or even one another in litigation, by assisting settling scores through assault or who promises his eromenos introduction to his blackmail.40 An influential erastes circle of hetairoi and his own and their support might seem a desirable ally to
a young man seeking to make his scholarly suggestion that an older name. Thus, erastes would when benefit we want to flesh out the and his eromenoi socially would

politically, a hetaireia mutual

been accomplished.41 One

support network is one way that this could have

imagine, however, that young males not

can

be persuaded solely by promises of long-term paybacks through club connections, but would desire the tangible rewards lavished on them by an infatuated erastes prepared to foot any bill to get what he is asking for.
37 Dover 1978: 92-93. Dover's list is derived from the early vase paintings, but such items are likely to have attracted was youths also in Plato's time. They certainly still did when Aristophanes writing his Wealth (153-159). 38 of luring even a wealthy (but in this case orphaned) youth into Aeschines accuses Demosthenes

a relationship by giving him free lessons in oratory and promising to enable him to make his name in politics (170-171). As meirakios, Timarchus firstmoved inwith a doctor on the pretext of training, the benefit of the doubt, he might really have wanted to (40). Ifwe give Timarchus saysAeschines tomake his name in politics (orwin a court case, for that matter) without the support of his hetairoi would have been the exception rather than the norm (1-2). Demosthenes Against Conon 54 gives ample evidence of how clubs were used for such purposes and how theyworked together. See Calhoun 1913 on club names (31-33), on the nature of fourth century clubs and their oligarchic association (23-24), on the clubs' general purposes (26), aria passim train as physician at that point. See Calhoun 1913. For an Athenian

on how clubs operated in litigation and politics. 41 For example, Dover 1978: 89; Nussbaum 1986: 207-208; Ferrari 1987: 90. Although I agree with Adkins (1996) about the importance of networking, I do not see the nonlover as democratic or his proposal as promoting civic harmony.

LYSIAS'

SPEECH

IN PLATO'S PHAEDRUS

29

But, as Dover (1978: 107) points out, there is no real difference between or services in returnfor sexual favors and accepting gifts receiving cash payments:
What, When is made after all, is prostitution? and the conditions monetary payment one could is no doubt about it; but what about a handsome present which stipulated, there or a word not otherwise in in the ear of afford ..., or free coaching the throwing javelin, an influential person?or render to those whom we any gift or service which we habitually love, like, admire, pity or wish to encourage, without thought of sexual pleasure?

The law itselfdoes not specify what kind of payment counts.42 In fact, it does not evenmention payment. As quoted byAeschines (19), the charge of hetairesis ... what simpr^an" and then goes on to specify merely says: "av ti? 'AGnvaicov civic privileges such a man will be deprived of.43 What counts as hetairein, and whether anymale's conduct qualifies, is a matter of interpretation in a given case in court. Since the presiding magistrate in court had no judging or advising when arguing function, elucidation of the pertinent lawswas left to the litigants their side of the case.44 Accordingly, the rhetorical skills of the litigantswere crucial. But part of those skillswas to be in tune with the beliefs of one's audience, not only with regard to the public perception of law and convention, but also with regard to the repute of one's opponent. Jurorswere bound to

consider the reputation of the litigants and particularly that of the accused. Thus Aeschines, as he himself says numerous times, relies in his prosecution to the largest extent on the commonly shared knowledge of Timarchus' ill-repute. It is (K|ut|, i.e., "common report" (and also "rumor"), that the jurorsmust recall to mind when judging Timarchus (127-130). Since the deed itself is done in private without witnesses (90-91), and neither of the two involvedwill come forward to And admit to it (72-73), the accused must be convicted on circumstantial evidence. in evidence Aeschines proceeds to outline Timarchus' sympotic exploits and gambling, and so on, financed by a bountiful older man (75-76). Hence, when a young male is surrounded by infatuated followers and one of them is often seen

42 Harrison (1968: 37), for example, believes that the nature of the reward did not matter and that the person would lose all citizen privileges: "A man who had prostituted himself for reward, whether [loss of honor]; he could not hold office, speak in the monetary or other, was subject to total anu?a assembly MacDowell or council, appear in court in his own person, act as priest, herald, or ambassador." 1978: 126. See also

mentions

out "[f]or Aeschines the pay-offs thatTimarchus received, as Cohen (1995:156) it is points nature of the sexual services rendered which is a not 'sex for pay,' but the very unworthy of citizen." In to another man Timarchus takes up the role that is nature intended forwomen submitting sexually by took it for granted that a youth would be tempted to render sexual services (185). Since Athenians was a seem to have been contemptuous of males who submitted only if there pay-off, and since they even less so for free sexually, I suspect that they might have thought highly of any male who did 1971: 74-190.

Scholars usually assume that a male incurred atimia only ifhe prostituted himself by having many lovers and accepting monetary rewards. Yet the lawgiver, saysAeschines, nowhere makes mention of contracting for pay (icax? auyypa<|)?? ?uia0?>6r|), but "no matter how the deed is done, he commands that the man who did it shall take no part in public affairs" (160-161). Although Aeschines often

because he actually liked being sexually subjugated. 44 For information on the judicial process, see Harrison

30

PHOENIX

to pay for him, or if a youth moves inwith someone obviously in lovewith him, or has received lavish presents from a lover, then these things sufficeas evidence
that he serves as sexual

be pressured or blackmailed by sycophants, who might take advantage of his was unable to risk a lawsuit of any kind.45 vulnerability as he one to keep in mind the anti-democratic ramifications of needs Second,
the practice of pederasty. On the one hand, atimia, and so debarment, are

One might raise the objection that, to escape repercussions, all such a male had to do was to avoid any active participation in public affairs. In that case no one could indict him under a graphe hetaireseos. Technically this is correct, but practically there ismore involved. First of all, one should not underestimate the importance Athenians attached to a citizen's honor and privileges. Since a debarment from addressing the people included losing one's right to address a court, this put an Athenian in the awkward position that he could easily

companion.

consequences of pederasty would be young males from less affluent families. As children and adolescents they are much more easily accessible to pederasts, because they are less likely to grow up sheltered and constantly attended by slaves. Their fathers or guardians are likelier to lack the connections and themeans to defend them against p?d?rastie exploitation. Even when older, such youths are still likely to be more easily lured into rendering sexual serviceswith promises of an introduction to a lover's circle of social, sympotic, and political gifts and of But hetairoi. they are also most easily discarded and abandoned, since they (and their families) lack powerful connections of their own to retaliate if ill-used and are in danger of sliding into common prostitution. The exploited. Hence, they Aeschines lists towards the end of his speechwho have "sinned against males that
themselves" and ended as

a state that prides itself on its participatory emasculating and incapacitating in democratic constitution. On the other hand, it affects isonomia (equality before and under the law), because the ones likely to be most affected by the damaging

a cook's son (158-159). Seeking on behalf of a client to destroy the politician Androtion's public image,Demosthenes, somewhat condescendingly, tells a court audience that Solon postulated no harsher penalty for thosewho served as sexual a companions (xo?? f|xaipr)K?civ) than prohibition from addressing the people, saw because "he that themajority of you do not avail yourselves of your right to a lot forAndrotion to have stayed out was not asking speak" (22.30).46 So it of public affairs.The argument is obviously anachronistic, since Solon's reforms
45 see Lofberg 1917. Much of the On Athenian litigiousness and the frequency of sycophancy, evidence comes from the fourth century. 46 Based on this comment byDemosthenes, Halperin (1990: 98-99) suggests thatmale prostitution source of income for lower-class males and was intended by the lawgiver as served as a welcome

prostitutes

are

socially

vulnerable,

e.g.,

an

orphan

and

such an option. He believes that, apart from safeguarding against oligarchs, isonomia as the goal of democratic legislation was symbolic, rather than a practical or moral goal (99). It seems to me that trueAthenian democrats would have heartily disagreed. Isonomia may have often existed more de jure

LYSIAS'

SPEECH

IN PLATO'S PHAEDRUS

31

gave the lower property classes only limited rights; they had towait for almost another two hundred years for full enfranchisement and for access to almost all administrative and political offices. Hence Solon's law would, indeed, have debarred those who participated in the sixth century, namely anyone from the upper income classes who lost his honor by submitting sexually to othermales. Most importantly for our discussion, however, the very purpose of agreeing to render sexual services inmany cases might well have been to gain a network
of

one's aid in quarrels and litigation. An ambitious male of this typewould be loath to abstain from public affairs and office and might hope to get powerful no one would dare to indict him. He might, indeed, get away with enough that it for years but could never feel quite safe.At some point someone might find it a expedient to challenge him to undergo scrutiny.Or someone (e.g., sycophant, or someone who bears a grudge, or again someone who finds it expedient for his own purposes) might pressure or blackmail him with a threat of litigation.47 Androtion could have been indicted under a Demosthenes, for instance, says that a was not, because he hetaireseos after proposed decree. But he immediately graphe the law offersmany options and opportunities to punish a man (Dem. 22.29). For example, another charge might have served the prosecutor's purpose better, or perhaps no one wanted to take him on just then. Most likely the decision to get someone on whether the from citizen list removed the often officially depended move someone else, and on how well connected, or how vulnerable the profited at least one-fifth of the votes, or be liable to a fine of one thousand drachmae.49 But Aeschines suggests that therewas a simpler route, namely that themen of a deme under oath could exclude someone from the citizen list (77-78).50 Itwould was done. be difficult to determine how commonly this Taking all this into consideration, the scheme of the nonlover ofLysias' speech
good sense for anyone who wants the rewards of a p?d?rastie affair but makes person was at that point.48 As a public case, a graphe required the prosecutor to get

people

to

support

one's

political,

social,

or

economic

aims

and

to come

to

than defacto, but that does not mean it.And, after all, its advocates were

that therewas no intention on the part of its advocates to realize themajority ofAthenians.

lover Hegesandrus, who, when intending to act as a public Just as, for example, Timarchus' was threatened with the same charge thatAeschines brought against Timarchus by Aristophon speaker, 48 Aeschines, for instance, is careful not to incriminate or name certain people in connection with either having kept an Athenian as sexual companion or having been one themselves, because he fears their own or their friends' enmity and retaliation, presumably in the form of physical revenge or same case once penalty applied to abandoning any public proceedings had been set inmotion. These measures are thought to have been intended to discourage sycophancy. See also Lofberg 1917: 86. litigation (45,158). 49 MacDowell 1978: 64. The

(64).

A comment inAristophanes' Knights (877) indicates that pederasts were successfully prosecuted We do not know what procedure was used, and deleted from the citizen list in the late fifth century. but possibly dokimasia and a graphe hetaireseos.

32

PHOENIX

seeks to avoid later complications and repercussions. If the speech is addressed to an underage youth, the intentionmight well be to keep the sexual affair secret even more even from the boy's family. In this case, especially, the secrecy is to theman's advantage, since theman as seducer of a legal minor is liable to a or charge of hubris. Even if the pederast managed to convince the father legal to a to to the this would make them liable scheme, agree technically guardian or out the of and Whether i? hiring hiring, respectively. youth underage charge man were over more if the would be maintained easily already eighteen, secrecy to compensate him with money rather thanwith gifts, since lavish presentswould lead to rumors despite all the precautions. If the nonlover were a master of any we can imagine him offering to pay an older youth in free training, or techne, lessons, and so on. In fact, thiswould serve themwell as a cover, since the youth could explain why he moved inwith the older man. Their sophronconduct would lend verisimilitude to such a master-apprentice relationship. Be that as itmay, the point is that even if no one knows about their arrangement and witnesses theirmutually advantageous dealings, this stillmeans that the youth serves as a sexual companion (hetairein) or, ifhe takes money, there is no doubt that he is so has a common prostitute (pornos). Either way he has incurred atimia, and forfeited his citizen privileges. But since no one witnesses these dealings and man and youth are they themselves will not talk, the reputation and future of even be enhanced. For theman will will Their secrecy. repute safeguarded by become known for his perfect self-control and sophrosune,not even showing the least signs of infatuationwhen in the company of a youth desired by others, and modest and chaste despite being so admired bymany the youth forbeing perfectly followers. This was the point of the nonlover saying that he will not begrudge the even like to see him thus admired (Phdr. youth all his admiring followers and will
232d-e). In

a p?d?rastie relationship while minimizing the risk of repercussions. How not a sensible proposition?
TRANSGRESSING NOMOI WHEN UNOBSERVED

short,

the nonlover's

scheme

shows

a way

of

getting

the most

out

of

is this

What the nonlover is proposing here, namely to appear law-abiding in public and to follow one's natural urges in secret, is a stance well expressed in the writing ofAntiphon the Sophist. The general conception of justice, according toAntiphon, "is not to transgress the laws ofwhatever city one lives in."52 But since nomoi (human laws and convention), which are artificial and merely agreed upon, often conflictwith what comes naturally and is necessary, it follows that
See Ferrari (1987: 92), who states that the nonlover "is buying sex from" the youth and that this "comes close to using the boy as his whore." But he adopts Dover's distinction of types of intercourse n. 7). Griswold (1986: 49) also mentions that as determining acceptable relations (251, taking benefits makes the nonbeloved "look rather like a prostitute, though a prostitute does not require a seduction can see now, however, why skilful seduction would be needed. speech."We 52 "On truth,"F44a, 1.1-11. Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent referenceswill be to Pendrick's (2002) translation and line numbering.

LYSIAS'

SPEECH

IN PLATO'S PHAEDRUS

33

it is best to uphold the laws of the citywhen witnesses are present, but when without witnesses to follow nature (F44a, I.34-II.22):
When a man the laws, then, he is free from shame and punishment if he transgresses on them; but if he does not, he is not. If, on the escapes the notice of those who agreed to any of the is possible other hand, he tries to do violence beyond what things born with nature, the harm is no less ifhe escapes the notice of all men, and no greater if all see him.

For he isharmed not through opinion but throughreality[?Xr\Qeiav].

In otherwords, one is liable to punishment only ifone is detected while breaking we go against our natural urges and desires, the laws of the city. By contrast, if we naturewill punish us whether any other human has witnessed the act or not. If had to suppress our natural need and desire for food due to abject poverty, nature with pain and ultimatelywith death by would punish us within a short time, first starvation. Stealing food, on the other hand, would only bring about punishment if someone were to observe the act. Secrecy protects an individual from humans and their nomoi, and following nature protects him from thewrath of nature. Consequently, combining both is to the individual's greatest overall advantage.

This is by no means just the cynical stance of a common hedonist who is out a were to be repaid by full to indulge his natural urges.54 If abiding by city's laws to were its be disobedience law,while protection through punished bywithdrawal to then ofthat protection, saysAntiphon, obedience lawmight be advantageous. But human law (and government) is incapable of achieving that (F44a, VI.9-26):
First, to act. And as it fails ... at the it allows the sufferer to suffer and the perpetrator just time to prevent the sufferer from suffering and the perpetrator from acting, so also when in the power of the it is referred to for the purpose of punishment, it is ho more peculiarly sufferer than of the perpetrator.

For the perpetrator can simply deny ever having committed the crime.55 The difficulty arising from this is particularly evident in the Athenian democratic
lay-judiciary system, where neither prosecutor nor jurors could rely on a police

more when one could suffer less. main point of going against nature is that one suffers to that claims here attacks just the Athenian democratic law, Antiphon Contrary scholarly Pendrick (2002: 20-23) points out that his critique pertains to any government. I agree, but the seems tome, becomes most obvious in a system like theAthenian democratic one. problem, it F44a, IV.30-33. Cf. Freeman's translation: "And if the case is brought up for punishment, there who

even one would be natural to though they have treated badly, i.e., it one's natural urge for revenge; and (2) to give an oath although the other side does not do likewise. And he adds that therewould be no shortage of other examples. The

to say, lawgivers Needless own theft.Antiphons examples (as the laws of the city demand) repay evil with evil and indulge

have long recognized this and make allowance for this type of petty of going against nature are more severe: (1) to treat one's parents well

must convince those is no advantage peculiar to the sufferer rather than to the doer. For the sufferer case. And to are to inflict the punishment, that he has suffered; and he needs the ability win his ... and he can defend himself no less than the it is open to the doer to deny, by the same means accuser can accuse, and persuasion is open to both parties, being a matter of technique ..." (1971: 148, ellipses in the original).

34

PHOENIX

or the a legal expertise of judge. investigation, independent expert testimony, we are as the kind of deed earlier cited Aeschines' from But, speech, talking about involved are not going to come forward to incriminate themselves. In such a case jurors have little choice but to judge by circumstantial evidence and bywhat they know, or are told, of the situation and the litigants. This iswhy Aeschines, as we saw, encourages the jurors (and court audience) to recall common report of
the accused's by its very nature has no witnesses who could be summoned, and those who are

under dispute. What is plausible needs to be in keeping with the societal belief a trial that lasts system,public doxa ("opinion"), and common report, only During or undo the a few hours, one cannot change and prejudice, damage done opinions over years. One's hetairoi rumor and by gossip that has taken root and grown can do little or nothing in court to alter one's bad reputation, for they are likely to share it. Where personal or political opponents and enemies, or sycophants, are always waiting in thewings, so to speak, the best protection might be to live
one's life in a manner and maximizes Men cannot known prove common to that the least ammunition negative gives a to the repute of model chances gain being sophron are to be erastai and eromenoi at risk of always being maligned. even if are. are chaste that they they one's report citizen. They

to try to undermine the prosecutor's image in a similarway. Much depends on the litigant's oratorical abilities, or on his having access to the services of a highly skilled logographer. The value of a reliable group of hetairoiwilling to support one or as witnesses or a co-speakers during trial, by employing intimidation, bribery, or blackmail outside of court, is obvious. But most important during trial is one's a convincing case based on a ability to make plausible depiction of the events

character,

conduct,

and

repute.

Needless

to

say, the accused

is

likely

however, would be reluctant to give up the kinds of pleasures and advantages that give rise to ill repute. Athenian pederasts would have been loath to forgo the thrills,challenges, and pleasures that they derived from illicitly Many,
hunting Athenian

even youths that it isworth theirwhile to submitwithout taking any risks, and in that is is their All conduct, enhancing reputation. required sobriety prudence in the choice of pay-off, and absolute secrecy.No wonder thatPhaedrus is enthralled by such simple, but marvelous, ingenuity (234b6-7). The basic scheme to reap all the benefits of appearing to be just, yet doing in secret as one pleases, will appeal to a lot of people, especially since it also provides the thrillof defrauding law and one a competitive a edge. It is the scheme of clever public opinion, while giving
56 summon an expert witness (or have a deposition read by the court clerk), for Litigants could a to the claimant's injuries sustained in an assault case (see, for instance, example, physician attesting Dem. 54.10). Such expert testimony, however, might be biased in favor of the claimant, or even obtained through bribery. On the immense power of theAthenian people as jurors see, for example, Lofberg 1917: 8-15. As noted by Plato's Socrates, charges resulting from rumor and gossip are much more dangerous and difficult to dislodge and to refute {Apol. 18a-e).

youths.

The

nonlover's

scheme

offers

a means

to

persuade

such

LYSIAS' SPEECH INPLATO'SPHAEDRUS

35

hubristes. "Lysias" has said no more than is necessary to get these points across to those who can read between the lineswithout a chance on saying too taking much or being actionably explicit. The illicitness of it all cannot fail to tantalize a man of theworld like Phaedrus who, not surprisingly, prefers to go outside the to walls revel in such hubristic lawlessness. city
BUT WHERE DOES THE PHAEDRUS GO FROM HERE?58

We, on the other hand, can see why Plato has Socrates spend so much time on counteracting the corrupting influence of such a proposal with two other can sense of Socrates' severe We also make speeches. judgment of the nonlover. For he prophesies that the psyches of nonlover and nonbeloved will wander aimlessly above and below the earth for nine thousand years, a fateworse than that of the common lover.59 Socrates and Phaedrus are ready to re-enter the city only afterPhaedrus has been weaned step by step from his enthusiasm for. such hubristic logographic sophistry.Phaedrus (andwe) are turned away from outward appearance to the innermost reaches of the human psyche. The clever, hubristic
scheme

constraints imposed on individuals by state and society.Law and convention, they say, are human inventions to protect the majority by demanding sobriety,restraint, and obedience, whereas tacitlypeople agree that it is natural forhumans to satisfy theirdesires asmuch as they can and to seek theirown advantage. Hence, the idea that sobriety and restraint are best is only the doxa ("opinion") we have acquired through socialization, while the natural principle in us aims for pleasure. This a nomos-phusisview of polar opposition between two leading principles that rule us is set out in the first speech of Socrates (237b-241d).60 The rule of the acquired principle is called sophrosune, and the rule of our desire for pleasure is called hubris (237d-238a). Since eros,now, is explicidy defined as one form of hubristic rule?i.e., epithumia for bodies, which conquers and completely eclipses the sophronprinciple (238b-c)?this model reveals the sex-seeking, allegedly sophron nonlover to be a self-contradictory impostor.Accordingly, Socrates breaks off the speech without fulfillingthe set task of expounding the benefits of the nonlover. In wise foresight Socrates had revealed him to be a concealed lover already at the outset (237b).
Obviously, the scope of the present paper does not allow me to go intomuch detail. But Iwould like to suggest here in outline what I intend to discuss elsewhere. 59 Socrates offers this prognosis towards the end of his second speech (Phdr. 256e-257a). As he stresses the fate of the as the worst there is,we can assume that that of the nonloving couple safely common lover and his beloved is less severe. This would make no sense ifPlato wanted to have us believe that the nonlover is a prudent second best, or at least a sober but honest business type. 60 That Plato was much interested in the debate surrounding the nomos-phusis antithesis is evident also in other dialogues, for example, Gorgias and Republic, where Socrates challenges respectively and Thrasymachus' advocacy of thephusis side.

appeals

to

many

because

they

see

it as

a natural

reaction

against

the

Callicles'

36 The
model response model, non-sexual

PHOENIX
definition of eros as hubristic sexual desire postulated in this bi-polar
proves, however, desire too narrow. It can account in neither for a non-sexual to erotic if hubristic attraction nor takes for over, self-control sophron sexual According general. retreats. Socrates' to this second

restraint

speech (243e-257b),
eros and

the great palinode

condemns earthly

to the god Eros, vindicates a divine

eros. The inadequate bi-polar model

is replaced by a triadic explanatory model of the psyche presented through a soul-chariot metaphor. It depicts our three psychic forces as two horses, naturally as light and dark, and their charioteer, nous,who alone is a leading and opposed The dark steed is the unruly hubristic force in us, concerned with guiding force.61 selfish interests and desires (253d-e). The light steed, by contrast, is satisfying obedient and easily guided by a mere command. It is this communal force, as we may call it,which is characterized by sophrosune,honor, and a sense of shame, and is a companion of genuine repute (??/nOivrj? 8o^r|? ?xa?po?, 253d6-7). are in all of us by nature. Socrates describes the Importantly, all three forces innerpsychic struggle of a philosopher erotically attracted to a beautiful boy. The hubristic self-centered force urges on towards th? satisfaction of sexual desire

(254a-b). At the prospect of being dragged into something terrible and contrary to the law (?eiva Kai 7iap?vo|xa, 254bl), the guiding force holds back and the obedient communal force is helplessly drenched in shame (253e-254b). But its of the boy's beautiful face triggers sophrosune shines forth only when the vision the noetic recollection of a prenatal vision of the Form of Beauty with Sophrosune on chaste standing ground (254b-c, with 250c-251a, 247d). Only the pilot of the noetic the guiding force, has this pivotal insight throughwhich it gains psyche, the strengthnecessary effectivelyto subdue the hubristic force and to take the lead (254c-255a). But such a philosophical person is not concerned with appearances and so does not hide his love (252a-b). He aims to lead the psyche of the beloved towards philosophy and a philosophical life (255b-256b). To people who judge a by appearances, the philosophical lovermay indeed look just like corrupter of to while he is This say, may appear unjust being just. youths. The present occasion does not permit us to explore the connections between the seemingly disjointed halves of the dialogue inmore detail. But letme point out one connection to Socrates' discussion of spoken and written logoi ("words, speech"). He chastises the existing technelogon ("artof speech") and itspractitioners for their focus on appearance and the likely (to eikos, 259e-260e, 272c-273d). This so-called art of speech that, according to Socrates, is a mere artless knack (axeij/rivo? xpi?rj, 260e) is of the greatest prominence and importancewithin the Athenian political and judiciary arena. But its aim to enable speakers to achieve their own ends and advantages is detrimental to thepolis as a whole (260b-d). The proponents of this "art" cater towhat seems plausible to public opinion and
61 See Buccioni palinode. 2002 for an analysis of these three psychic forces and an interpretation of Socrates'

LYSIAS'

SPEECH

IN PLATO'S

PHAEDRUS

37

even advise when what is likely seems more credible to one's concealing the truth more to one's personal advantage (272d-273c). But even audience and is thereby someone intending to deceive would need to know where the truth lies, says Socrates (261e-262c, 273d), because what is likely persuades only through its resemblance to the truth. Moreover, without knowing the truthone cannot avoid
contradictions, incoherence, and

Take someone like the Lysian nonlover, whose self-portrait, at first glance, we see that this is not so. He seems credible to many. But on closer scrutiny wants sex but tacitly denies sexual desire. He claims to be sophron, while at the same time seeking hubristic satisfaction. Proposing a public display of civic
virtues, he at the same time advocates concealment and

self-deception.

him to be a corrupting deceiver. We can well imagine how Epicrates and his an audacious speech (227a-b). companions chuckled when they firstheard such Many others might say that societies that pay such heed to appearances deserve to be deceived if ithappens to be to one's own advantage. The problem, however, goes much deeper than having a bit of illicit fun. If a large number of members of societywere to think itmore advantageous to appear to excel in civic virtue and obedience of the law while secretly doing as they please, social cohesion would begin to disintegrate. No one would know who could be trusted.Even the deceivers themselveswould be unable to distinguish truthfrom falsity,appearance from reality. But expecting anyone who is enthralled by the possibilities of hubristic imposture to be swayed by one's counter-argument that truth and trust do matter would mean overestimating the power of rational argumentation. What is necessary is to lead people step by step to a recognition of the self-defeating nature of theirbeliefs. To this end Socrates introduces the genuine art of rhetoric that is a psuchagogia by means of logoi, i.e., it enables one to lead psyches by linguisticmeans (261a-b). Those who want to become genuine psychagogues must take the long road of philosophy and dialectic.62
School Sheridan of Community Institute and Liberal Studies and Advanced Learning

secrecy.

All

this

reveals

of Technology

1430 Trafalgar
Oakville, Ontario

Road L6H 2L1 eva.buccioni@sheridanc.on.ca

62 on the Phaedrus and have My gratitude to those who have encouraged my work provided feedback on earlier versions of this paper and to those whose writings I have consulted; I apologize and Michael for not mentioning all by name. My sincere thanks to Ken Dorter. Spiro Panagiotou's Nicholson

to the Phoenix referees and another anonymous scrutinizing the first and last versions. Many thanks to say, any remaining errors are my referee for their detailed and most helpful comments. Needless own.

Stokes's scrutiny of an earlier version helped to improve the present paper. Special thanks toGraeme for most enjoyable discussions, to Aara Suksi for her kind encouragement that helped an editorial mystery, and to Jeff for tremendously, to Fran?ois Renaud for illuminating Mitscherling

38 PHOENIX
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams,

C. D.

tr. 1919. The

Adkins, A. W. H. 1996. "The 'Speech ofLysias' inPlato's Phaedrus? inR. B. Louden and
P. Schollmeier Benardete, Chicago. Buccioni, Calhoun, Cohen, E. 2002. G. M. S. 1991. 224-240. (eds.), The Greeks and Us. Chicago. and Platos The Rhetoric of Morality Philosophy, "The Psychical Forces Clubs in Plato's Phaedrus? Gorgias and Phaedrus. the History

Aeschines. Speeches of

Cambridge,

MA.

in Politics and New York. Litigation. in Classical Athens. Cambridge. Community on the Phaedrus Plato. Amsterdam. De Vries, G. J. 1969. A Commentary of on Transcendence in Plato K. 1993. "Nussbaum and Aristotle," Dorter, Dialogue, 105-115. 1913. Athenian D. 1995. Law, Violence, and Dover,

of Philosophy10: 331-357.

British Journal for

32:

in the Time Plato and Aristotle. K. J. 1974. Greek and Berkeley of Popular Morality Los Angeles. Greek MA. -1978. Cambridge, Homosexuality. to A Cicadas: Plato s Phaedrus. G. F. R. 1987. the New York. Ferrari, Listening Study of in the Values Honour Ancient Greece. and Shame in Fisher, N. R. E. 1992. Hybris:A Study of Warminster. Freeman, Griswold, Hackforth, K. tr. 1971. Ancilla to the Presocratic C. L. Jr. 1986. Self Knowledge R. tr. 1952. Plato s Phaedrus. One Hundred 1968. The Law Athens of Years MA. Philosophers. Cambridge, in Plato's Phaedrus. Park, PA. University and Other and Essays on Greek Love.

Cambridge. of Homosexuality,

1990. D. Halperin, New York. Harrison, -1971. Lofberg, MacDowell, Nichols, A. J. O. R. W. The Law 1917. D. M.

Athens 1: The Family of 2: Procedure. Oxford.

Property.

Oxford.

inAthens. Chicago. Sycophancy in Classical Athens. 1978. The Law

London.

Ithaca. J. H. Jr. tr. 1998. Plato, Phaedrus. G. 1999. Platos Phaedrus: The Philosophy ofLove. West Nicholson, Lafayette. in Greek Literature. and 1966. North, H. Self-Restraint Sophrosyne, Self-Knowledge M. and Recantation in the Phaedrus? 1986. C. "Madness, Reason, Nussbaum, Ostwald, Peschel, Rosen, Rowe, Fragility M. Goodness. Cambridge, 200-233. MA. of to the 1986. From Popular Sovereignty Sovereignty Die Het?re bei Symposion V Chr. Frankfurt. Phaedrus. undKomos in der Man Law. of

Ithaca. in The

The Fragments. Pendrick,G. J. tr.2002. Antiphon theSophist, Cambridge.

1.1987. des 6.-4.Jahrh. S. 1969. C.

Berkeley. Vasenmalerei

attisch-rot?gurigen and World

"The Non-Lover

in Plato's

Phaedrus?

2: 423-437.

J. tr. 1986. Plato:

Warminster.