BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Two
Creon delegitimizes the dōrodokos by problematizing the monies used to
negotiate his relations with others. While timē marks a relationship between philoi, silver
or money marks relations among kakoi like the dōrodokos, at least from Creon’s
perspective. 60 After all, silver money is that “bad institution” (kakon nomisma) that has
arisen among men (Soph. An. 295-6). Creon is certain that a misthos or ‘wage’ of silver
caused someone to bury Polynices (Soph. An. 293-4), but his language is telling, for he
envisions a misthos of silver as the reward for a heinous ergon like Polynices’ burial (cf.
ei)rga/sqai, Soph. An. 294), just as timē had been the reward for the good deeds of a
euergetēs only a few lines prior. In effect, money replaces the timē doled out by king and
polis alike, as Creon sets up two different reciprocal relationships, one negotiated by
good works and civic honor (timē), the other by a misthos and dōrodokia. 61
For Creon, silver money is more than a medium transacted by the dōrodokos; it is
a conceptual frame for understanding their relations. There are, then, major problems
with this substitution of money for timē in exchange relationships. First, as the ‘wrong’
medium, silver itself symbolizes the corruption of proper relations between citizen and
king. The king warns, “money by its teaching perverts men’s good minds so that they
take to evil actions” (Soph. An. 298-9). It is important here that Creon does not presume
that the crime was perpetrated by people who were already kakoi; instead, he infers that
kakoi led astray perfectly good citizens to join their ranks (e)k tw=nde
tou/touj…/parhgme/nouj, Soph. An. 293-4). It is in this sense that the money is thought
60 For a fuller treatment of Creon’s views on money, see Seaford (1998: 131-8). It should be noted,
however, that whereas I assume that Creon’s silver functions as a money, Seaford must argue that it
specifically constitutes general all-purpose money, in the modern use of the term. The difference stems
from my adoption of a relational view of economics, on which see Chapter One above.
61 Creon’s use of misthos here only underscores this point. Insofar as a misthos is a payment—in cash or
kind—from a superior to an inferior, it is directly analogous to the hierarchy posited when king or polis
bestows honors upon a citizen. Recall that the Eion epigrams, in honor of soldiers who died in battle, were
also called a misthos (Plut. Cim. 7.4).
106