BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Three
quickly established, the speaker spends the remainder of the speech cataloguing all the
various ways in which Philocrates bribed others. Like Ergocles, Philocrates apparently
sought to avoid accountability specifically by bribing citizens, jurors, accusers, and
witnesses. 37 Indeed, throughout the speech Philocrates is presented in tandem with
Ergocles—essentially, he is considered guilty by association with his friend (esp. Lys.
29.3)—and the speaker of Lysias 29 underscores how the pair maintained the exact same
sort of negative reciprocity with the people. Like Ergocles, who actively harmed the
people (cf. kakw=j diaqei/j, Lys. 29.2; cf. 29.14), Philocrates becomes an enemy of the
people by withholding public property (e)xqrou/j, Lys. 29.9). 38 In short, Ergocles and
Philocrates provide the same paradigm of bad citizens who choose to pursue profit even
at the risk of becoming outsiders to the moral community of the city. 39
Unlike in Lysias 28, however, Philocrates’ negative reciprocity is weighed against
the regular, reciprocal exchanges of performing a liturgy for the community, like paying
the eisphora (Lys. 29.9). And again, the speaker contrasts the liturgists’ regular
reservations about the trierarchy with Philocrates’ willingness to undertake the service,
the implication being that Philocrates volunteered so that he could profit (Lys. 29.4). The
speaker reinterprets the motivation of Ergocles, too, in the same light, as Ergocles is
thought to have pursued personal gain, not public honor, in becoming stratēgos
(0Ergoklh=j xrhmatiou/menoj a)ll’ ou) pro\j u(ma=j filotimhso/menoj e)ce/pleuse, Lys.
37 Both men are thought to have paid off their accusers (Lys. 29.1, 6) and potentially their juries (Lys.
29.12, 13); additionally, the speaker insinuates that Philocrates bribed his witnesses (cf. pepo/ristai, Lys.
29.7).
38 Note how the speaker balances the people’s refusal to ‘give’ immunity to Ergocles with Ergocles’ own
negative reciprocity—plundering and embezzling public funds (cf. dw/sete…diarpa/zousi kai\ kle/tousin,
Lys. 29.13). The lack of return given to Ergocles reflects the negative return he provided the city.
39 In fact, the speaker effectively elides any difference between the two when he remarks that with a guilty
vote at Philocrates’ trial the jurors would send the same message as they had in convicting Ergocles
(29.13).
144