We have seen in the foregoing section that paiderastia at Athens was
closely associated with liberty, manly sports, severe studies,
enthusiasm, self-sacrifice, self-control, and deeds of daring, by those
who cared for those things. It has also been made abundantly manifest
that no serious moral shame attached to persons who used boys like
women, but that effeminate youths of free birth were stigmatised for
their indecent profligacy. It remains still to ascertain the more
delicate distinctions which were drawn by Attic law and custom in this
matter, though what has been already quoted from Pausanias, in the
_Symposium_ of Plato, may be taken fairly to express the code of honour
among gentlemen.
In the _Plutus_,[140] Aristophanes is careful to divide "boys with
lovers," into "the good," and "the strumpets." This distinction will
serve as basis for the following remarks. A very definite line was drawn
by the Athenians between boys who accepted the addresses of their lovers
because they liked them or because they were ambitious of comradeship
with men of spirit, and those who sold their bodies for money. Minute
inquiry was never instituted into the conduct of the former class; else
Alcibiades could not have made his famous declaration about
Socrates,[141] nor would Plato in the _Phædrus_ have regarded an
occasional breach of chastity, under the compulsion of violent passion,
as a venial error.[142] The latter, on the other hand, besides being
visited with universal censure, were disqualified by law from exercising
the privileges of the franchise, from undertaking embassies, from
frequenting the Agora, and from taking part in public festivals, under
the penalty of death. Æschines, from whom we learn the wording of this
statute, adds:[143] "This law he passed with regard to youths who sin
with facility and readiness against their own bodies." He then proceeds
to define the true nature of prostitution, prohibited by law to the
citizens of Athens. It is this: "Any one who acts in this way towards a
single man, provided he do it with payment, seems to me to be liable to
the reproach in question."[144] The whole discussion turns upon the word
_Misthos_. The orator is cautious to meet the argument that a written
contract was necessary in order to construct a case of _Hetaireia_ at
law.[145] In the statute, he observes, there is no mention of "contract"
or "deed in writing." The offence has been sufficiently established
"when in any way whatever payment has been made."
In order to illustrate the feeling of the Athenians with regard to
making profit out of paiderastic relations, I may perhaps be permitted
to interrupt the analysis of Æschines by referring to Xenophon's
character (_Anab._ si, 6, 21) of the Strategus Menon. The whole tenor of
his judgment is extremely unfavourable toward this man, who invariable
pursued selfish and mean aims, debasing virtuous qualities like ambition
and industry in the mere pursuit of wealth and power. He was, in fact,
devoid of chivalrous feeling, good taste, and honour. About his
behaviour as a youth, Xenophon writes: "With Ariæus, the barbarian,
because this man was partial to handsome youths, he became extremely
intimate while he was still in the prime of adolescence; moreover, he
had Tharypas for his beloved, he being beardless and Tharypas a man
with a beard." His crime seems to have been that he prostituted himself
to the barbarian Ariæus in order to advance his interest, and, probably
with the same view, flattered the effeminate vanity of an elder man by
pretending to love him out of the right time or season. Plutarch
(_Pyrrhus_) mentions this Tharypas as the first to introduce Hellenic
manners among the Molossi.
When more than one lover was admitted, the guilt was aggravated. "It
will then be manifest that he has not only acted the strumpet, but that
he has been a common prostitute. For he who does this indifferently, and
with money, and for money, seems to have incurred that designation."
Thus the question finally put to the Areopagus, in which court the case
against Timarchus was tried, ran as follows, in the words of
Æschines:[146] "To which of these two classes will you reckon
Timarchus--to those who have had a lover, or to those who have been
prostitutes?" In his rhetorical exposition, Æschines defines the true
character of the virtuous _Eromenos_. Frankly admitting his own
partiality for beautiful young men, he argues after this fashion:[147]
"I do not attach any blame to love. I do not take away the character of
handsome lads. I do not deny that I have often loved, and had many
quarrels and jealousies in this matter. But I establish this as an
irrefutable fact, that, while the love of beautiful and temperate youths
does honour to humanity and indicates a generous temper, the buying of
the person of a free boy for debauchery is a mark of insolence and
ill-breeding. To be loved is an honour: to sell yourself is a disgrace."
He then appeals to the law which forbade slaves to love, thereby
implying that this was the privilege and pride of free men. He alludes
to the heroic deed of Aristogeiton and to the great example of Achilles.
Finally, he draws up a list of well-known and respected citizens whose
loves were notorious, and compares them with a parallel list of persons
infamous for their debauchery. What remains in the peroration to this
invective traverses the same ground. Some phrases may be quoted which
illustrate the popular feeling of the Athenians. Timarchus is
stigmatised[148] as, "the man and male who, in spite of this, has
debauched his body by womanly acts of lust," and again as, "one who
against the law of nature has given himself to lewdness." It is obvious
here that Æschines, the self-avowed boy-lover, while seeking to crush
his opponent by flinging effeminacy and unnatural behaviour in his
teeth, assumes at the same time that honourable paiderastia implies no
such disgrace. Again, he observes that it is as easy to recognise a
pathic by his impudent behaviour as a gymnast by his muscles. Lastly, he
bids the judges force intemperate lovers to abstain from free youths,
and satisfy their lusts upon the persons of foreigners and aliens.[149]
The whole matter at this distance of time is obscure, nor can we hope to
apprehend the full force of distinctions drawn by a Greek orator
appealing to a Greek audience. We may, indeed, fairly presume that, as
is always the case with popular ethics, considerable confusion existed
in the minds of the Athenians themselves, and that, even for them, to
formulate the whole of their social feelings on this topic consistently,
would have been impossible. The main point, however, seems to be that at
Athens it was held honourable to love free boys with decency; that the
conduct of lovers between themselves, within the limits of recognised
friendship, was not challenged; and that no particular shame attached to
profligate persons so long as they refrained from tampering with the
sons of citizens.[150]