In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

102 Chapter 3 Sexual Offenses 3.1. Moicheia (Seduction) and Rape Handbooks: J. H. Lipsius, Das attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren (Leipzig 1905–­ 15) 429–­ 35, 482, 636–­ 39, 710; A. R. W. Harrison, The Law of Athens (Oxford 1968–­ 71) 1.13–­ 15, 19, 32–­ 39; 2.15, 78, 81–­ 82, 167–­ 68; D. M. MacDowell , The Law in Classical Athens (Ithaca, NY 1978) 124–­ 26; S. C. Todd, The Shape of Athenian Law (Oxford 1993) 276–­79; E. Cantarella, “Gender, Sexuality , and Law,” in The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law, ed. M. Gagarin-­ D. Cohen (Cambridge 2005) 236–­ 53. Studies: S. G. Cole, “Greek Sanctions against Sexual Assault,” CP 79 (1984) 97–­113; E. M. Harris, “Did the Athenians Regard Seduction As a Worse Crime Than Rape?,” CQ 40 (1990) 370–­77; D. Cohen, Law, Sexuality, and Society: The Enforcement of Morals in Classical Athens (Cambridge 1991); idem, Law, Violence, and Community in Classical Athens (Cambridge 1995) 143–­ 62; C. Carey, “Rape and Adultery in Athenian Law,” CQ 45 (1995) 407–­ 17; K. Kapparis, “When Were the Athenian Adultery Laws Introduced?,” RIDA ser. 3 vol. 42 (1995) 97–­ 122; idem, “Humiliating the Adulterer: The Law and the Practice in Classical Athens,” RIDA ser. 3 vol. 43 (1996) 63–­ 77; D. Ogden, “Rape, Adultery and the Protection of Bloodlines in Classical Athens,” in Rape in Antiquity, ed. S. Deacy-­ K. F. Pierce (London 1997) 25–­ 41; A. C. Scafuro, The Forensic Stage: Settling Disputes in Graeco-­ Roman New Comedy (Cambridge 1997) 193–­ 216, 229–­ 31, 474–­79; W. Schmitz, “Der nomos moicheias—­ Das athenische Gesetz über den Ehebruch,” ZSS 114 (1997) 45–­ 140; C. B. Patterson, The Family in Greek History (Cambridge, MA 1998) 70–­179; R. Omitowoju, Rape and the Politics of Consent in Classical Athens (Cambridge 2002); D. D. Phillips, “Why Was Lycophron Prosecuted by Eisangelia?,” GRBS 46 (2006) 375–­ 94. Sexual Offenses • 103 The earliest surviving Athenian law that deals (indirectly) with seduction and rape is the clause in Draco’s homicide law concerning lawful killings (3f Dem. 23.53; cf. 54), which permits the killing of a man discovered in the act of intercourse with the killer’s wife, mother, sister, daughter, or concubine kept for the procreation of free children; these provisions do not distinguish between consensual intercourse and rape. The lost beginning of the pseudo-­ Aristotelian Constitution of the Athenians (Ath. Pol.: see references and headnote under 1c) contained an anecdote in which the Athenian king (or archon) Hippomenes (?late eighth century B.C.), after catching a seducer with his daughter Leimone, killed the former by dragging him behind a chariot and the latter by locking her up with a horse (Heraclides Lembus, Epitome of the Ath. Pol. 1). In all probability, the only factual element of the story is that one of the last Athenian kings was named Hippomenes, and the rest was invented later to explain the fall of the monarchy: see P. J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford 1993) 78–­ 79; N. R. E. Fisher, Aeschines: Against Timarchos (Oxford 2001) 331–­ 34. The inventions presumably arose from the fact that the name Hippomenes means “horse-­ strength” (in addition to the fates of Leimone and her seducer, note that Leimone’s name means “meadow”). The story, therefore, has no value for the treatment of seduction in Athenian law, except insofar as a speaker might employ it as evidence (cf., e.g., Aeschines 1.182) for the antiquity of the Draconian rule. According to Plutarch (50), Solon penalized the rape of a free woman with a fine of 100 drachmas. The bulk of our evidence for seduction and rape, however , comes from the late fifth and fourth centuries, at which time multiple remedies were available for each offense (as commonly in Athenian law: see p. 33). However, we are comparatively ill-­ informed about the treatment of seduction and rape in the time of the Attic orators: in general, we have better evidence for the existence of various legal procedures than for their application. With regard to sex, Athenians had differing sociolegal expectations of men and women. Citizen women were expected to have sex only within the marital bond, while men, regardless of their marital status, were permitted to have sex with both male and female partners, provided that they obeyed social and legal strictures (for example, punitive sanctions applied to a man who had sex with a citizen woman who was not his wife, and social stigma attached...

Share