Against Timocrates

"Against Timocrates" was a speech given by Demosthenes in Athens in which he accused Timocrates of proposing an illegal decree.^[1] The speech provides our best evidence about the use of imprisonment as a punishment in Classical Athens.^[1]

Timocrates' law would have allowed debtors to the state to go free on providing a surety, rather than being imprisoned until they paid their debts.^[2] Demosthenes' speech criticises this law on the grounds that it would unfairly advantage wealthy citizens at the expense of the poor.^[3]

Historical background

The speech can be dated to the summer of 353 BC.^[4] A series of events led to the trial. Three Athenians in 355 BC, including Androtion, whilst sailing as ambassadors to Mausolus, the King of Caria, captured a merchant ship near Naucratis, claiming lawful seizure of enemy property.^[4] The ambassadors held onto the plunder they received until a commission was appointed into the matter, moved by Euctemon and Diodorus.^[4] Euctemon and Diodorus gave information against the two trierarchs who had been commanding the ambassadors' ship.^[4] The result was that the ambassadors admitted possession of the money, however Euctemon furthered his investigation and proposed a decree (which was passed) that the trierarchs should be responsible for recovering the money.^[4]

Androtion and his supporters in retaliation proposed a graphe paranomon (the charge for proposing an unlawful decree) against Euctemon.^[4] Euctemon was acquitted, however Timocrates, a friend of the ambassadors, then proposed his law that any debtor of the state should remain at liberty until the ninth prytany on the condition that they provided a surety.^[4] This presumably would have enabled the ambassadors to escape with their plunder.^[4] The speech "Against Timocrates" details the graphe paranomon Euctemon and Diodorus brought against Timocrates in retaliation.^[4] Diodorus opens the speech. The action of the graphe paranomon suspended the effect of Timocrates' law, and the ambassadors were forced to pay the money.^[4] The action against Timocrates however was not halted but pursued.^[4]