10.04.2013 Views

BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Two<br />

self-interested opportunist, in fact, he might genuinely have thought himself ‘champion<br />

of the people’ (or the two could be one and the same). 105 After all, in renouncing his old<br />

friendships, he reportedly criticized the corruption that could result from conducting<br />

politics through selective social and political channels. Philia, Plutarch has him claim,<br />

“often softened one’s thinking and led one astray from right and just policy in<br />

politics.” 106 Following Plutarch, we might imagine that Cleon, like his paymasters, was<br />

himself trying to improve a corrupt system. Whether this testimony is apocryphal or not,<br />

we cannot be certain, but it does make sense if we adopt the perspective of those<br />

Athenians for whom political subordination to a patron was no longer necessary and no<br />

longer desired.<br />

This chapter has examined the figure of the dōrodokos in the fifth century: a<br />

disobedient character whose presence signaled problems in the distribution of monies in<br />

Athens’ public economies of empire and patronage. By the end of the century, the<br />

dōrodokos was not simply a disobedient citizen, but one who had inverted the vertical<br />

relations between citizen and community; in this respect, he was opposed completely to<br />

“people’s power.” As the Peloponnesian War drew to a close, such opposition to the<br />

democracy crystallized in the form of two different oligarchic coups, at which point the<br />

figure of the dōrodokos became inextricably linked with oligarchy. Along with civil war,<br />

impossible to assess—despite the best efforts of Wankel (1982): cf. Harvey (1985) and Hansen (1991:<br />

274-6; cf. 1980). Given the extraordinary sums cited, these instances most likely represent problematic<br />

exceptions, that is, instances when a rhētor’s fee was blamed for his bad performance, rather than strong<br />

indications that payments themselves were banned. In fact, the very point of Hyperides’ testimony is that<br />

these kinds of payments were allowed so long as they did not result in harm to the dēmos.<br />

105<br />

Prostatēs tou dēmou: Ar. Eq. 1128, Ra. 569; cf. V. 419, Pax 684, Pl. 920; Thuc. 8.89.4. Connor (1971:<br />

110-15).<br />

106<br />

w(j polla_ th~j o)rqh~j kai\ dikai/aj proaire/sewj mala&ssousan e0n th| ~ politei/a| kai\ para&gousan,<br />

Plut. Mor. 806F.<br />

124

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!