It is no coincidence that the women discussed in [Demosthenes] 59 and 48, and Isaeus 3 and 6 are women associated with the speakers’ op- ponent. Just as they speak ill of their male adversary, orators attempt to malign the woman associated with such an opponent.11 Calling a
woman a hetaira in itself is not necessarily enough to criticize a woman and arouse the disapproval of the jurors, since prostitution was com- mon place. Speakers must ensure that the woman’s character will not be likeable. The emphasis on her overt promiscuity, offensive and dan- gerous behavior, as well as her scheming nature accomplishes this. The orators further demonstrate that the woman has overstepped certain bounds by wrongfully claiming a specific status, or undeservedly en- joying particular privileges. The details and the repetition of details, most notable in the case of Neaira, confirm that speakers appeal to a negative stereotype of the hetaira as part of a strategy to arouse the pa-
thos of the jurors, in this case anger, hatred and fear. For example, who
of the jurors would not be annoyed when they consider the charge that Stephanus tried to pass a woman like Neaira as his wife and allowed her the privilege of such status?
Orators even appear to apply this negative characterization of the
hetaira regardless of the actual status of the woman under scrutiny.12
Phano, also characterized by Apollodorus in [Demosthenes] 59, and Plangon, discussed by Mantitheos in Demosthenes 39 and [Demos- thenes] 40, are victims of such a strategy. Phano, for example, was argu- ably a legal wife, since she was twice married to an Athenian (50, 72).13
In addition, although Apollodorus disputes the status of her child, he never confirms that her first husband failed to register the son in his
genos and phratry (55–63).14Despite her status and circumstances, Apol-
lodorus associates Phano with the habits and traits typical of hetairai in oratory, and at times even directly alludes to her role as a prostitute. Phano is a drain on the household on account of her extravagance—she is described as unable to live in accordance with the penny-pinching ways of her first husband (50). After he sends her away, she makes her- self sexually available to a lover (64–71). According to Apollodorus, she even receives payment from Epainetos, the lover, who claims he spent a great deal of money on her and the rest of the household (67). Stepha- nus, in turn, later convinces him to contribute one thousand drachmas to Phano’s marriage, citing the fact that Epainetos has been using her sexually and so owes her a good turn (70–71). Apollodorus further argues that when charged with adultery, Epainetos defended himself on the grounds that Phano was a practicing prostitute (67). Apollo- dorus, however, never formally substantiates the accusation of prosti- tution.15The mere suggestion, combined with his detailed description
of her behavior, is likely enough to anger the jurors when they recall her marriages, and cause them to suspect her status.
Plangon, in the second example, was the daughter of the Athenian Pamphilos of Keiriadai, and was likely the first wife of the speaker’s father, Mantias.16In the case of this woman, the speaker Mantitheos ig-
nores the past marital relationship between her and his father, and in- stead emphasizes the contact between them, when they were no longer married. He comes close to stating that it was a prostitute-client rela- tionship but tempers his remarks: “with Plangon, the mother of these men, [my father] consorted [eplêsiazen] in some way or other at one time, but it is not my place to say” (40.8) “Plêsiazein” (“to have a rela- tionship with”) is the common term orators use to refer to the sexual re- lationship between a hetaira and her client, and it appears numerous times in Isaeus 3 and [Demosthenes] 59.17Its appearance here means
the speaker wishes to imply that Plangon is similar to a prostitute, The Bad Girls of Athens 131
although he feigns reluctance to be more specific about her relationship with his father. He goes on to use this verb two more times in a similar context (40.27). Furthermore, he emphasizes that Plangon lives extrav- agantly (polutelôs)—a complaint leveled against the others. For exam- ple, he describes her as keeping many personal female slaves, and he lets his audience know that she cost Mantitheos’s father great expense (40.51). This last charge also implies that she was paid like a hetaira. Fi- nally, Mantitheos emphasizes her scheming nature, recalling how she tricked and double-crossed his father when she swore before the public arbitrator that he was the father of both her sons (40.10–11; 39.3–4). Al- though the orator is not intending to prove Plangon’s status as a hetaira, associating her with such women influences the jurors’ opinion about her, undermines their sympathy for her, and makes them question Plan- gon’s reputation and position in the community. Furthermore, the por- trait of Plangon hints at the illegitimate status of the speaker’s oppo- nent, her son, and thus insults the opponent.18Although legitimacy is
not the main issue of the conflict, the speaker obscures her relationship with Mantias, and questions Mantias’ recognition of her sons.
In addition to influencing the opinion of the jurors and arousing their anger, vilifying a woman by attributing to her the negative traits associated with the hetaira can be an important element of the orator’s argument for winning a case. Orators use this unflattering picture of the hetaira and its opposition to the vision of the chaste wife to chal- lenge an opponent’s claim to inheritance and question the status of his household. Of the speeches referred to, Isaeus 3 and Isaeus 6 stem from arguments over familial status and the right of inheritance. Both dis- credit claimants on the grounds that their mothers were hetairai and not married women. Isaeus 3 is an accusation of perjury against an Athe- nian who swore in a previous trial that his sister was the legitimate wife of Pyrrhus (4–7). The relationship between this woman and Pyrrhus is of prime importance because if they were legally married, the daughter Phile has the status of an epiklêros.19Pyrrhus’s adoption of a son and the
fact that many of the events described occurred at least twenty years earlier complicate the case (1). On the death of the adopted son, who also died without issue, two families claimed the estate: Pyrrhus’s sister (also the mother of the adopted son) and Phile’s husband (2–3). The speaker recounts his argument, which he had made at a previous trial, stating that it was unlikely Pyrrhus would have married a woman who acted as Phile’s mother did (11–16). Thus, he claims that Phile’s mother was a hetaira and not the wife of Pyrrhus, making Phile the daughter of
a prostitute and her status as epiklêros impossible.20Isaeus 6, in turn,
concerns the rightful heir of Euctemon. In this case, the adopted son of Euctemon’s deceased son Philoctemon claims the estate but is opposed by Euctemon’s kinsman Androcles on the grounds that Euctemon has two surviving sons, with the eldest recognized by his phratry as being legitimate (3, 10, 24). These two sons are not by Euctemon’s wife (the wife identified by the speaker), but, as Androcles appears to claim, a second wife (13). The speaker, however, argues that both sons are illegit- imate, and that neither is a son of Euctemon. He claims they are the off- spring of the prostitute Alce and the freedman Dion, and that Euctemon is the victim of her schemes (18–37). Thus, the speaker’s key argument associates sons, recognized by Euctemon and in one case his phratry, with a prostitute in order to discredit their claims to inheritance.
[Demosthenes] 59 centers on Stephanus’s household and the nature of his association with Neaira. This trial is the last of a series of disputes between Apollodorus and Stephanus, the motivation for which is po- litical.21In the current case, Apollodorus accuses Stephanus of treating
Neaira as his wife, when she is an alien and not eligible for marriage with a citizen. Apollodorus’s main strategy consists in detailing Neaira’s life as a hetaira—almost a third of the speech is devoted to this purpose (18–48)—to convince the jurors of her status as foreigner (xenê). If suc- cessful, Stephanus will have to pay one thousand drachmas in penalty and Neaira will be sold into slavery (16). Apollodorus further asso- ciates the daughter of Stephanus’s household with Neaira. If the jury is convinced that Phano is not his daughter, then Stephanus will suffer an even greater penalty: atimia (loss of citizenship rights) and confiscation of his property because he married Phano to Athenian citizens, repre- senting her as his own (52). In this case, Apollodorus emphasizes Pha- no’s behavior, showing how it is like a prostitute’s, to convince the jurors she is the daughter of Neaira and not Stephanus (50–70). A winning conviction could bring the status of Stephanus’s sons into question as well (Patterson 1994, 203). Thus, Apollodorus uses the women asso- ciated with Stephanus and descriptions of their behavior to place the entire oikos of Stephanus in jeopardy. In all of these trials, the status of the women and/or the nature of their relationship to particular men, oftentimes the opponent himself, are part of the speaker’s attack on the opponent and part of his strategy for winning the case.
Emphasizing the negative image of a hetaira, characterizing a woman as a hetaira, and/or associating opponents with hetairai in disputes concerned with the status of individuals or households were effective The Bad Girls of Athens 133
strategies for two reasons. First, there was no permanent record of a female’s status (see Cole 1984, 237 n.25). Instead, women were depen- dent on individual witnesses who could attest to parentage and to a his- tory of participation in traditional and communal events.22Very little of
the ritual designed to assimilate a child to private and public groups, however, applied to females. Those that did exist were mostly private ceremonies with invited guests as witnesses. In the ceremony known as the amphidromia, the father recognized a child, whether male or female, as an official member of the family and worthy to be brought up. Then at the dekatê (tenth-day ceremony), the father gave the infant a name. Marriage with betrothal (enguê) further indicated a woman’s status in the community. Betrothal included, but did not require, the provision of a dowry, which was additional evidence of marriage status (Wyse [1904] 1967, 308). For example, women of poor families would not al- ways have dowries to attest to their status as married.23Public recogni-
tion was rare and infrequent, most common for elite women whose husbands possessed some wealth.24A newlywed husband might hold a
sacrifice and marriage feast (gamêlia) for his phratry.25Husbands of the
liturgical class were expected to finance a festival, such as the Thesmo-
phoria, on behalf of their wives. Members of this elite and wealthy class,
however, represented only a small fraction of the population. Thus, proof of a woman’s social standing was primarily dependent on indi- vidual witnesses, making women’s status vulnerable to attack.
Secondly, Pericles’ citizenship law strengthened the categorization of women into two groups. Enacted in 451/0 BCE, this law redefined
astai (women eligible for marriage with citizens) and distinguished
them from non-Attic women by requiring that both parents of Athe- nian citizens be astoi.26Thus, being a wife took on special distinction
with specific requirements. Non-Attic women included slaves, freed- women, and foreign women (xenai), and Athenians did not recognize their children as astoi. To most Athenians, hetaira would imply slave, freedwoman, or xenê—a woman who was clearly non-Attic—because
astai who became prostitutes in Classical Athens seem to have been
rare.27Being a hetaira meant the male client would not recognize any of
her offspring as his responsibility and that the polis would not recog- nize them as Athenians. The lifestyle of the hetaira was also unique in that she regularly interacted with males, attended symposia, and had a reputation for extravagance. Labeling women as hetairai indicates a certain reputation and lifestyle and brings the paternity of any chil- dren into question. Thus, the contrast between hetairai and astai becomes
an exploitable polarization for the orator in cases centering on a woman’s status, inheritance, or the status of a household. By equating women associated with the opponent with hetairai, orators not only malign women connected to opponents but effectively distinguish them from astai.
Conclusion
My examination of orators’ use of a negative characterization of hetaira and their use of antithesis shows that orators manipulate images of women to their own advantage. Thus, images of women associated with the opponent are constructed and serve a rhetorical function. Rec- ognizing portraits of women in forensic oratory as artfully constructed enriches our interpretation of these representations. Narratives involv- ing women associated with the opponent are neither historically cor- rect representations of women’s lives nor accurate representations of historical individuals. Such narratives present a stock character that the orator uses to cast doubt on the status and/or respectability of his tar- get. They are intended to vilify women, insult the opponent, and arouse the odium and indignatio of the listeners. Furthermore, they act to de- stroy an opponent’s claim to inheritance, question the status of his household, or even his own status. The use of an image of the hetaira in portraits of women of varying status indicates a double standard of sorts. Athenian society approves of female prostitution, but orators use an image of the prostitute and sexuality associated with the prostitute to judge and abuse various types of women. The use of such images in judicial oratory would have had a significant impact on the individual lives of ancient women. Whether or not the opponent prevailed was immaterial to the woman under scrutiny. Her reputation, now sullied, entered the public domain.
Notes
1. “Hetaira” (pl. “hetairai”) refers to a type of prostitute in classical Athens. The term’s first use in reference to female prostitution appears in Herodotus 2.134–35. The best translation is “sexual companion.” I avoid using “courte- san,” a popular rendering in English, because it carries connotations for the modern reader not appropriate in the current context.
2. For more recent scholars holding this same view of the hetaira see Canta- rella (1987, 49–50) and Blundell (1995, 148). Keuls (1985, 188–200) and Reins- berg (1989, 80–86, 88–89) critique this view of the hetaira as an idealization and draw few distinctions between hetairai and pornai.
3. More such details likely emerged in the discussion of the mother’s status as hetaira in a previous trial, alluded to by the speaker (Isaeus 3.11–12), but un- fortunately the earlier speech does not survive.
4. See p. 125 and n. 2 and Davidson (1997, 120–26).
5. Cox (1998, 168–89) discusses hetairai as a strain on the household. 6. The law is not included in the text, but Isaeus 3.80 restricts participation to married women. Also see Wyse ([1904] 1967, 536–37) on the likely nature of the law.
7. Note that Alce is in fact a freedwoman, not a slave, but according to Wyse ([1904] 1967, 537) “to call a freedwoman a ‘slave’ is a pardonable license” in oratory.
8. The Boulê reviewed the celebration of festivals to ensure that participants observed the necessary piety. For example, the speaker of Andocides 1.111 re- ports that the Boulê met after the celebration of the Mysteries and received a re- port regarding the conduct of the festival. No record exists of a special session after the Thesmophoria, but in all likelihood the Archon-Basileus could report disturbances or acts of impiety at a regular meeting of the Boulê, where a course of action could be decided upon and a decision made about whether or not to punish the offenders. See Wyse ([1904] 1967, 538).
9. See De Brauw (2001–02, 162–76) on citing law as a way to portray character. 10. Translaton adapted from Carey (1992, 75). I translate “astê” as “a woman eligible for marriage with a citizen” rather than simply “citizen” to emphasize that men and women had different rights in Athens. Athenian males had full citizen rights, whereas Athenian women only had partial rights. This transla- tion also highlights the difference between the Athenian woman and other women in the polis. Only she was eligible for marriage with a citizen and able to bear children of Athenian status in such a marriage.
11. Although a surprise to the modern reader, attacking the character of the opponent was a typical strategy of the orators. Aristotle includes this strategy in his discussion of artful proofs and encourages the orator to add details that convey the wickedness (kakia) of the opponent (Rh. 1417a3–8). In practice, ora-
tors extend their character assassination to family and friends associated with the opponent. See Carey (1994, 32). For information on typical accusations against the character of a male opponent see Hunter (1994, 101–10, 118–19).
12. Some scholars remain unconvinced by orators who label women as prostitutes. Hunter (1994, 113) hints that Phile’s mother was in fact a legal wife, not a hetaira. Compare with Patterson (1990, 71–73). Foxhall (1996, 151) ques- tions the status of Olympiodorus’ hetaira, suggesting the identification may be “a slanderous attack on a legitimate wife.” Perhaps the status of Neaira as a prostitute is also questionable since the events used to prove such status date back twenty or thirty years. See Glazebrook ([2005] 162, 182–83).
13. See Kapparis (1999, 35–36). Patterson (1994, 207–9) claims that Phano must be the legitimate daughter of Stephanus.
14. See Kapparis (1999, 36, 282–84).
15. According to Apollodorus, Stephanus accused Epainetos with adultery, and Epainetos defended himself against the charge by claiming that Phano was a practicing prostitute (59.64–71). Scafuro (1997, 112) points out that claiming
prostitution was a possible defence against adultery, especially if gifts were ac- cepted. Formal proof of Phano’s prostitution is not provided. Kapparis (1999, 313) argues this charge would have been difficult to prove. In the end, Epaine- tos accepts the compromise of contributing to Phano’s dowry. According to Kapparis (1999, 38) the dowry indicates that Phano was not a prostitute, or treated as a prostitute by Stephanus, but a legitimate daughter and treated as such. Thus, Apollodorus is simply exploiting an uncomfortable situation.
16. Boeotus claims his mother was married to Mantias with a dowry, but Mantitheos obscures the relationship between his father and Plangon. See De- mosthenes 39.23 and [Demosthenes] 40.14–15, 20, 22.
17. See Isaeus 3.10, 15 and [Demosthenes] 59.9, 20, 37, 41. Notably, this verb also describes the relationship between Epainetos and Phano ([Demosthenes] 59.67).
18. Demosthenes also draws on the negative characteristics of the prostitute in a brief reference to Aeschines’s mother as a way to insult Aeschines. The de- scription here, however, is less subtle and much more obscene—in addition to labeling her a prostitute, he comments that she would perform any sexual act and undertake all sexual requests (De corona 129–30). For a discussion of the larger context see Harding (1987, 30–31).
19. An epiklêros is the surviving daughter of a deceased father with no sons. Her closest male relative on her father’s side was obliged to marry her and the resulting son became the rightful heir. Harrison (1998, 132–38).
20. See n. 12 on the possible status of Phile’s mother as wife.
21. Theomnestus outlines the disputes in the opening of the speech (59.6–11). 22. See Patterson (1998, 108–14) on the lack of legal recognition for the state of matrimony and Scafuro (1994) on the importance of witnesses in determin- ing an individual’s status. Scafuro (1994, 157–63) emphasizes that there are dif- ferent proofs for males and females and a summary of those for females follows