O prostituciji u Pseudo-Demostenovom govoru Protiv Neajre ([Dem.] 59)

Abstract

У раду се разматра терминологија који се односи на проституцију и сексуални рад у Псеудо-Демостеновом говору Против Неајре. Аутор се супротставља неким модерним трендовима који негирају да је у говору уопште било речи о проституцији, односно о продаји тела за новац или за неку другу корист или услугу. Расправља се о изразима и фразама коришћеним у старогрчком језику за означавање сексуалних радница и плаћеног секса, а анализирају се сва она места у говору која се извесно односе на »најстарији занат«.

The paper deals with terminology relating to prostitution and sex labour in the pseudo-Demosthenic speech Against Neaira ([Dem.] 59). It is an extremely important source that provides much information about customs, laws, and social life in classical Athens, and it remains so despite some recently raised doubts about its credibility, and for the history of prostitution and sex work in Athens and in ancient Greece in general. A detailed reading and analysis of all the relevant parts of this speech, as well as looking at the historical context in which the judicial process that the speech testifies to took place, strengthens our belief that in practice there was no essential difference between the labour performed by common prostitutes (πόρναι) and that performed by hetairai (ἑταῖραι). There did not seem to be a legally significant difference between both terms and Apollodorus, the most likely author of the speech Against Neaira, for example, uses the same terminology to describe both the common prostitutes (πόρναι) and expensive hetairai (ἑταῖραι). Both prostitutes and hetairai were recruited almost entirely from the ranks of enslaved, freedwomen and foreign. The basis of the activities of both were sexual services provided to multiple clients in exchange for money. Regardless of the differences that could be related to the price of work and working conditions, both prostitutes and particularly hetairai provided their clients sex in exchange for financial compensation of any kind. In addition, hetairai had specifically been trained to please men, so they could also provide some other services that did not necessarily have to be related to sex. However, talking about hetairai as the elite women is certainly an exaggeration not substantiated sufficiently in the extant sources. It is also an exaggeration when talking about the supposed great freedom of hetairai to decide for themselves about their life and work, about choosing clients, etc. The example of Neaira is the one which testifies that even famous hetairai could hardly survive as foreigners in Athenian society without relying on some powerful individual and protector. What kind of freedom can we talk about when in practice they could hardly replace that protector with someone else? Other doubts regarding hetairai and sex labour are often the result of fluidity of terminology and inaccuracies in the sources, as well as the euphemisms they abound.