Eleanor Finch
In 346 BC, Greek statesman Aeschines delivered a speech titled Against Timarchus in response to Timarchus' suit against him, accusing him of misconduct as an ambassador to Philip II of Macedon. The speech was a counter-attack to delay his impending trial and discredit Timarchus, a prominent politician, by alleging that his past addiction to personal vices should exclude him from the Athenian assembly. The audience of the speech included the jury, who agreed with Aeschines' arguments and found Timarchus guilty, resulting in his punishment of disenfranchisement. Aeschines' speech has been widely studied for its legal, historical, and social insights, particularly regarding Athenian laws and attitudes towards homosexuality.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Time | 346–345 BC |
| Location | Athens |
| Participants | Aeschines, Timarchus, Demosthenes |
| Profession of Participants | Statesmen, Politicians, Orators |
| Tone | Accusatory, Defensive |
| Topics | Homosexuality, Morality, Law, Politics |
| Outcome | Aeschines Won, Timarchus Disenfranchised |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Athenian laws and attitudes towards homosexuality
Athenian society also sought to limit pederasty through other means, such as a law that prevented boys and their teachers from entering a schoolhouse before dawn or after dusk. Additionally, Athenian orators like Aeschines attacked the moral character of political opponents, accusing them of having affairs with men, which was considered an ad hominem argument. This suggests that while homosexuality may have been tolerated to an extent, it was still used as a means of discrediting public figures.
The Athenian perspective on homosexuality differed from other Greek city-states, such as Sparta, where pederasty was not only permitted but also institutionalised. In Athens, however, pederasty was increasingly viewed as an unnatural and archaic tradition. This shift in attitude may be due to the influence of philosophers like Plato, who argued that homosexuality was unnatural because male animals only mate with female partners in nature.
Despite these changing attitudes, there is evidence that same-sex relationships between elite males in Athens continued to exist, such as the romance between Pausanias and Agathon, which was made famous by Plato. Additionally, Athenian law did not appear to have an issue with age differences in relationships, as young girls were often married to older men. Overall, while Athenian laws and attitudes towards homosexuality evolved over time, the society generally tolerated same-sex relations to some degree, even if certain expressions of homosexuality were stigmatised or legally restricted.
The Home-Buying Experience: A Sample Guide
You may want to see also
Timarchus' alleged sexual exploits
In 346–345 BC, Aeschines delivered a speech entitled "Against Timarchus" (Greek: Κατὰ Τιμάρχου) in response to Timarchus and Demosthenes' suit against him, accusing him of misconduct as an ambassador to Philip II of Macedon. In his speech, Aeschines accused Timarchus of prostituting himself and wasting his inheritance, engaging in bribery, sycophancy, embezzlement, and perjury, and leading an excessive and immoral lifestyle.
The specific allegations of Timarchus' sexual exploits are that he prostituted himself to multiple men, including Misgolas, the son of Naucrates. Aeschines claimed that Timarchus' affairs were well-known to the jury, but modern scholars have criticised the lack of evidence presented, as no witnesses testified to any sexual relationships, and there was no proof of payment for sex. Nonetheless, the accusation implied sex work in exchange for money, which was considered morally reprehensible by Athenians, especially when purchased by men of a lower class.
The case resulted in Timarchus being punished by disenfranchisement, effectively removing him from public life. Aeschines' speech is significant as a source for understanding Athenian laws and attitudes toward homosexual behaviour and relations, as well as providing insights into the social and historical context of the time.
The Elastic Clause: Understanding the US Constitution's Flexibility
You may want to see also
Timarchus' eligibility to prosecute
In 346–345 BC, Timarchus, along with Demosthenes, brought a suit against Aeschines, accusing him of misconduct as an ambassador to Philip II of Macedon. In response, Aeschines counter-attacked with a speech titled "Against Timarchus", in which he accused Timarchus of being unfit to involve himself in public life.
In his speech, Aeschines levied various charges against Timarchus, including prostitution, squandering his inheritance, bribery, sycophancy, the buying of office, embezzlement, and perjury. He also accused Timarchus of having a lewd and excessive lifestyle, including being addicted to personal vices, which by law should forever exclude him from the platform of the Athenian assembly.
Aeschines argued that Timarchus' alleged actions would cause a citizen to lose the right to address the Assembly. He introduced a law that would exclude a man of Timarchus' alleged lewd life not only from the courts but from all public and religious functions. According to Aeschines, conviction under this law would virtually, though not technically, convict Timarchus under the charge of being unfit to participate in public life.
While Aeschines won the case and Timarchus was punished by disenfranchisement, modern scholars have criticised the lack of evidence presented by Aeschines. They point out that he failed to provide evidence of payment from Timarchus' lovers and did not produce any witnesses to testify about Timarchus' alleged sexual relationships. As such, the speech has been classified as an ad hominem argument, attacking Timarchus' moral character in response to political allegations.
Texas Constitution of 1876: Was It Approved by Voters?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The political background to the case
The context of the case was the ongoing political tensions in Athens, with Aeschines and Demosthenes on opposing sides. Demosthenes and Timarchus accused Aeschines of misconduct during his diplomatic role in negotiating the Peace of Philocrates with Philip II. This accusation carried significant weight as it implied a potential threat to Athens' security and stability, given the city's delicate relationship with Macedon.
In response, Aeschines launched a counter-attack, bringing charges against Timarchus. Aeschines accused Timarchus of having been a prostitute in his youth, which was considered a morally reprehensible act by Athenians. He also charged Timarchus with wasting his inheritance, bribery, sycophancy, the buying of office, embezzlement, and perjury. By doing so, Aeschines shifted the focus away from himself and onto Timarchus' moral character, successfully delaying his own trial.
The political implications of the case were significant. Aeschines' successful attack on Timarchus resulted in his own acquittal of treason charges. Additionally, the case provides valuable insight into Athenian laws, attitudes, and societal norms, particularly regarding homosexuality and political corruption.
The trial and its outcome also highlight the importance of oratory skill and strategic argumentation in Athenian politics. Aeschines' speech was skillfully crafted to appeal to the jury and popular opinion, ultimately leading to Timarchus' disenfranchisement.
The Path to Becoming a Supreme Court Justice
You may want to see also
The outcome of the trial
In 346–345 BC, Aeschines delivered a speech accusing Timarchus of being unfit to involve himself in public life. The case was brought about in response to Timarchus, along with Demosthenes, bringing a suit against Aeschines, accusing him of misconduct as an ambassador to Philip II of Macedon.
Aeschines won the case, and Timarchus was punished by disenfranchisement. Aeschines' successful attack on Timarchus cleared him of the charge of treason. Following the trial, Aeschines went into voluntary exile in Rhodes to avoid the judgement of the jury, likely a large sum of money.
In his speech, Aeschines accused Timarchus of prostituting himself and wasting his inheritance. He also charged Timarchus with "bribery, sycophancy, the buying of office, embezzlement, and perjury". Aeschines argued that Timarchus' sexual exploits in his pursuit of youths transgressed the mores of society. The jury agreed with Aeschines' arguments.
Modern scholars have criticised the lack of evidence that Aeschines presented in the trial. For instance, Hubbard points out that Aeschines did not provide any evidence that Timarchus' lovers ever paid him. Additionally, Aeschines did not produce any witnesses who could testify that Timarchus had any sexual relationships with the men in question. Despite this, Aeschines' speech is considered important because of the numerous Athenian laws it cites.
Service of Process in Serbia: What's Legal?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The speech was delivered to a jury of Athenian citizens.
We do not know the names of the jury members, but we know that the jury agreed with Aeschines's arguments.
Aeschines won the case, and Timarchus was punished by disenfranchisement.
