BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Introduction
of the Athenians were not so pleased with the ambassador’s efforts. Upon his return to
Athens, Timagoras was brought to trial for bribery (dōrodokia) and sentenced to death.
No doubt shocked by this turn of events, the King reportedly never gave an ambassador
money again. 4
To modern eyes, Timagoras’ fate provokes diametrically opposed reactions. In
reading our sources, one is struck by how quickly the charming details of the story give
way to its macabre conclusion. Particularly in Plutarch’s hands, Timagoras’ embassy
becomes a parable writ large: in a dramatic twist of Sophoclean irony, the seemingly
innocuous gifts the Athenian takes to cure his illness become the very cause of his
demise. Yet in that case it is equally striking just how much the story of Timagoras lurks
only in the background of Plutarch’s narrative, in the shadows of the history he crafts.
Timagoras’ fate is something of a tangent in Plutarch’s Life of Pelopidas, at best a
counterpoint for Pelopidas’ own virtue in taking but few gifts from the Persian King. In
this sense, Plutarch uses Timagoras’ bribery as only a narrative foil, an implicit reminder
of how things with Pelopidas could have turned out.
And this leads to a second reaction, common among ancient historians in
particular: no reaction at all. Classical Athenian history is rife with stories of bribery. A
4 Conviction of Timagoras: Xen. Hell. 1.38; Dem. 19.31, 137, 191; Plut. Pelop. 30.6, Art. 22.6; Athen.
6.251b. The charge was most likely one of dōrodokia, as given in Plutarch (Art. 22.6) and as accords with
Demosthenes’ references (esp. Dem. 19.137). Contrary to this view, on the basis that Xenophon seemingly
does not mention any bribery of Timagoras, Perlman (1976: 229) presumes that dōrodokia was not part of
the original charge against Timagoras, but was later added to the story. Yet Xenophon does appear to
allude to some kind of dōrodokia: in describing how Antiochus the Arcadian ambassador refused the
King’s gifts, Xenophon refers to them as ta\ dw=ra (Xen. Hell. 7.1.38). The use of the definite article here
presupposes that the dōra had already been mentioned—in other words, that they were, in fact, implicit in
the historian’s remarks about Timagoras’ conviction. On this reading, we should understand the
w(jclause describing Timagoras’ conviction as an elaboration from Leon’s prosecution of Timagoras, not
as the formal charge itself. Similarly, Athenaeus’ explanation that Timagoras was prosecuted for obeisance
to the King (w(j basile/a proseku/nhsen, Athen. 6.251b) is most likely just another way of indicating that
he had been bribed to join allegiance with the King. On the King’s subsequent refraining from dōrodokia,
see Dem. 19.137.
3