Who Is Timarchus Being Committed By Aeschines?

In “Aeschines: Against Timarchus” Aeschines, using only indirect language, convincingly argues that Timarchus, being a citizen male who is active in public political life, has committed hubris acts upon himself through his sexual promiscuity with various men. In ancient Greek society, to talk candidly about male same sex acts was considered indecorous, and it would offend the members of the court if Aeschines spoke explicitly. For this reason, the language Aeschines uses when describing the sexual acts committed by Timarchus is at once discrete and poignant. While avoiding transparency in his descriptions, Aeschines nonetheless leads the jury to a resolute conclusion regarding the exact nature of Timarchus’ past sexual experiences with men.

This achievement is done through a number of linguistic methods, the most comprehensive technique being Aeschines’ use of active and passive language when describing Timarchus’ sexual acts.

Aeschines undercuts Timarchus’ credibility by carefully wording the nature of Timarchus’ alleged shameful past, insinuating that Timarchus is the passive, receiving partner in his sexual ventures with Misgolas and other men (41). The unnameable sins that Misgolas actively “wanted to do” (41) to Timarchus, Timarchus passively wanted to “have done” to him (41). This attack on the character of Timarchus serves to effeminate him in the eyes of the jury, for to be “a creature with the body of a man defiled with the sins of a woman” (185) is a shameful disposition for a politically active male. This use of the active and passive verb tense in Aeschines’ speech successfully laid the foundation for the jury to begin to question the masculinity of

Timarchus.
Adding on to that foundation, through the use of comparative language Aeschines successfully debases the status of Timarchus to that of a woman’s. When presenting his case against Timarchus, Aeschines references an instance in court where Timarchus was jokingly called a woman by a fellow polis member (110-111). By implying that Timarchus is like a woman, Aeschines is able to indicate the nature of the sexual acts that Timarchus has committed, or more accurately, has submitted to. Despite the obvious fact that Timarchus does not have a vagina, it is colloquially understood that any bodily orifice that is a receptor for a penis can be seen as a vagina. Through anal penetration, Aeschines argues that Timarchus has lowered himself to be of the same worthlessness as a woman. By referencing this past instance, Aeschines is able to convincingly allude to the exact nature of Timarchus’ sexual past without having to actually describe it.
Having successfully undermined the character of Timarchus, Aeschines convincingly argues through the use of sophistic rhetoric that Timarchus does not just enjoy the company of men, but was a pornos, making him unfit for life in the polis. Despite having no evidence of this fact, Aeschines is able to so decisively argue his point through his use of language, persuading the jury by appealing to their desire for justice. That when discussing such hubris acts one does not need evidence, as it is common knowledge what acts a pornos does, even though it is not seen; “[do not] ask whether anyone saw, but whether he has done the deed. [...] “knowing the profession of the man, you know his act also” (74-75).
The language one would use to describe the sexual acts allegedly done to/by Timarchus is already frowned upon in the Athenian courts. Aeschines uses this fact to his advantage, suggesting through his own use of language that the sexual acts committed by Timarchus are so shameful that they cannot even be described. By refusing to name Timarchus’ sexual acts it gives those acts a power that would otherwise have been difficult to create. When an act becomes commonplace it is no longer as intimidating, but when an act remains shrouded in mystery and contempt through a lack of communication it becomes something to be feared.