This article argues that in the contests between Demosthenes and Aeschines, their insulting depictions of each other highlight the mouth as a prominent vehicle for communicating ideas about intemperance. Much of the imagery in the speeches lampoons oratorical delivery, especially vocal tone and deportment, which perceptibly project the speakers' characters. While Demosthenes is a piping chatterbox and Aeschines a voluble shouter, both extremes are characterized by an overuse or misuse of the mouth and its vocal organs. These insulting portrayals of (...) the mouth's capacities contribute to a larger abusive discourse that develops around professional speakers during this period. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:American Journal of Philology 124.4 (2003) 617-620 [Access article in PDF] ROSANNA OMITOWOJU. Rape and the Politics of Consentin Classical Athens. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. x + 249 pp. Cloth, $60. This book is an account of the treatment of heterosexual rape and related topics (e.g., the status of women, adultery) in two Athenian genres: forensic oratory and New Comedy. Omitowoju focuses primarily on the (...) issue of consent, a central concern of modern discussions. She demonstrates that this concern is largely absent from the ancient discourse, which effectively leaves the victim out of the picture and conforms to the silencing of women in ancient social contexts. Omitowoju does not emphasize this point, but the structure of her argument makes it clear, as does her sustained focus on the dependent status of the female "citizeness" (her term for demotis, politis, and aste gune, 23-26). She rightly insists, for instance, that the subject of rape cannot be addressed properly without reference to that central concern of Athenian men: what makes one a good citizen, and therefore who gets to enjoy citizen status. This valuable insight shapes Omitowoju's argument as a whole and should be taken seriously as a means of framing future discussions. Although the general introduction fails to situate this argument in relation to other analyses of rape in the field of classical studies, rehearsing instead some familiar notions from modern discussions, this move serves to highlight the primary differences (and disturbing similarities) between ancient and modern handling of the subject. We thereby notice, for example, that modern cases often still give too much weight to the respective statuses of the perpetrator and the victim, as if to excuse the former and blame the latter.The book is divided into two sections: the first scans forensic speeches for terminology that might relate to rape charges, and the second looks at Menander's comedies in order to assess their contributions to a reconstruction of attitudes toward rape. Omitowoju begins her discussion (after the general introduction) with a review of the forensic setting, including such essential elements as the difference between public and private charges (graphai vs. dikai) and the paucity of legal vocabulary for identifying types of "insolence" (hubris) or "violence" (bia) as rape. She also briefly considers the problems with treating texts composed by speechwriters (logographoi) as historical documents, a methodological difficulty that receives more attention in the Menander section. The discussion then turns to issues of citizenship and the "politicisation" of rape, which emerge as the central concerns of the first section. Omitowoju argues that because the Athenian woman had no "legal personality," her consent to any sexual encounter could not be distinguished from that of her male guardian (kurios) (25).This is an important point, and Omitowoju lays out the ramifications of this absence of women from the legal scene in some detail. It explains why the issue of consent is missing from the ancient discussion: if a female victim of sexual violence has no subjectivity from the legal perspective, then her response to the attack cannot even be expressed in the idiom. The only relevant legal [End Page 617] issues are whether she has a citizen kurios and is capable of giving birth to citizen children, in which case any sexual violence committed against her could be punishable by fines or even death. The charge of rape may not have been legally recognized if the woman in question was of lower status (e.g., a slave or courtesan [hetaira]), since in that case she may have a master but not necessarily one who would have an interest in defending her from sexual predation (80-81).Such distinctions emerge more fully in the course of the three chapters that divide the forensic material in relation to three terms with legal force: hubris, bia, and moicheia. The first two of these chapters address how charges of outrage and violence overlap with those of rape, while the third considers the problem of distinguishing adulterous liaisons from those involving sexual assault. Moicheia may refer to... (shrink)