BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Two
money. 44 He replied that he had used it “for what was necessary.” 45 As Plutarch relates,
when Pericles had been faced with a hostile Spartan army at the borders of Attica, “what
was necessary” in fact entailed bribing the Spartan King Plistoanax to retreat from Attic
soil. Upon his return to Sparta, Plistoanax was subsequently fined so heavily that he had
to go into exile (Plut. Per. 22.3). In a related anecdote, Pericles alternately resisted the
Samian oligarchs’ attempts to bribe him—so Plutarch in the Life of Pericles (25.2)—or
actually exacted an indemnity of 80 talents from them (cf. praca/menoj, DS 12.27.2).
These stories are mirror opposites of each other, but both point to the blurred boundaries
between ‘public’ and ‘private’ funds: in one Pericles personally directs the flow of public
funds; in the other, he collects for himself (or not) what normally would have been public
monies. 46
For our purposes it matters little whether or not ‘bribes’ really were given in
either case; what does matter is how the frame of bribery was employed to signal
potentially problematic social relations. So, if we understand that the Samians’
indemnity was ‘really’ a standard fine imposed by Athens, albeit collected by Pericles,
the frame of dōrodokia highlights the potential danger in having an individual control the
process of exaction. 47 Likewise, even though the Plistoanax incident did not seem to
cause any alarm at Athens, there were nevertheless troubling implications for Pericles’
44 Ephorus FGrH 70 F 93, Plut. Per. 22.2-23.1, DS 13.106.10; cf. Thuc. 2.21.2, 5.16.3. The sum has been
variously represented as 10 talents (Plut. Per. 23.1), 20 talents (schol. ad Ar. Nu. 859=Ephorus 70 FGrH
F193), and 50 talents (Suida s.v. de/on).
45 ei)j to\ de/on, Plut. Per. 23.1; cf. Ar. Nu. 859, Suida s.v. de/on. Ephorus 70 FGrH F193 writes to\ e)ndee/j.
46 The middle praca/menoj clearly has this meaning: LSJ s.v. pra/ssw VI; cf. Hdt. 2.126, Thuc. 4.65, Ar.
Ra. 561. At this time Athens, as a polis, was known to take hostages in order to guarantee compliance: e.g.
IG i 3 40.47-50=ML 52 (Chalcis and Eretria; 446/5) and Hesychius s.v. )Eretriko\j kata/logoj. But such
actions clearly operated within the economy of empire; for an individual to exact these monies thus
reflected a blurring of economies. It is most likely in reaction to such blurring, and in defense of Pericles,
that stories of his not being bribed cropped up.
47 In fact, given the widespread rumor that Aspasia had convinced Pericles to take action against Samos
(Plut. Per. 24.2, 25.1), Pericles’ motivations and role in the Samian War were already suspect.
98