BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Two
archonship to the third census class of citizens, the zeugitai, in 457 BCE. 53 Again, with
Pericles’ citizenship law in 451/0 BCE, which restricted citizenship to those Athenians
who had both an Athenian mother and father, the dēmos asserted its manifest authority to
distribute shares of the franchise. 54
By mid-century, then, the dēmos had firmly asserted its political authority to
distribute and control domestic monies, including rewards, political office, and the
privileges of citizenship. Note how none of these monies overlapped with the monies of
patronage, and in fact the dēmos’ authority to distribute these monies was never
contested. Yet in Pericles’ time—in competition with Pericles, as it turns out—the dēmos
did begin to contest the blurred boundaries between the monies of patronage and those of
empire, particularly elite expenditure on public buildings. Beginning with Pericles, in an
effort to ensure that the lines between those two economies would be kept distinct, the
dēmos actively differentiated between tribute monies and private outlays. The so-called
Springhouse Decree, for example, records how Pericles and his sons offered to help
finance expenses concerning the water supply, but were refused by the dēmos; tribute
The second, and crucial, overlooked aspect of the lot was that it established the dēmos as the
authoritative leader distributing shares to citizens, much as a general might distribute booty to his soldiers:
Hamel (1998: 44-8). The very act of awarding timē to another was a source and sign of political authority:
see Hom. Il. 1.123-9, 2.226-8, 9.318-19 with Raaflaub and Wallace (2007: esp. 27-9) on the “people’s
power” in Homeric Greece. While it is manifestly true that, at least after the institution of scrutiny
(dokimasia) at the deme level, the dēmos in a sense ‘controlled’ the selection of magistrates, I wish to
underscore that the allotment process, too, reified the dēmos’ authority to distribute the rewards (timai) of
polity.
53 AP 26.2 with Raaflaub (2007: 115).
54 AP 26.4, Plut. Per. 37.3, Aelian VH 6.10. Patterson (1981: 104-7), Hansen (1991: 188) and Raaflaub
(2007: 115) on the connection between Pericles’ citizenship law and the dēmos’ desire to control the
qualifications for citizenship—and, by extension, the rewards accrued therefrom. For an overview, see
Rhodes (1981: 333-4 ad AP 26.4), Patterson (1981: 97-104), Stadter (1989: 334-5 ad Per. 37.3).
Certainly by the 420’s it was taken for granted that citizens, in particular, had the right to benefit materially
from Athens’ imperial power: Ar. V. 655-64, AP 24.3; Samons (2000: 65).
101