BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Three
others and grow rich. 45 The entire premise of the comedy, repeated by almost every
character, is that the good are poor, while the bad are rich. 46 Just as Plato would later
suggest in the Republic, the mere possession of wealth was itself thought to turn
somebody into a greedy ponēros, and politicians here were ponēroi par excellence (Ar.
Pl. 30-1, 379, 567-70). 47
Hence, the orators’ conceit of profiting ‘at the city’s expense’ transforms into a
‘rags to riches’ trope: anybody who recently acquired wealth must be bad. Yet this
truism has two distinct meanings in the play: people can profit only through being bad,
and simply possessing wealth makes one greedy and bad. 48 Ultimately, both valences are
at stake in the comedy’s version of the ‘rags to riches’ trope. Politicians might ‘take’ in
order to acquire wealth; and, once they have it, out of sheer greed they might not ‘give’ it
up. The profiteering of politicians in Wealth is certainly reminiscent of Ergocles’
negative reciprocity with the community, but the play also picks up on how Philocrates
defected on his financial obligations to the community.
45 They are, as a result, frequently called thieves and contrasted with chrēstoi who ‘give’ to others and to
the community: e.g. Ar. Pl. 203-6, 510-16, 665-6, 672-84, 869-71, 903-23. Cf. Olson (1990: 240-1). On
the terms chrēstos and ponēros in late-fifth- and early-fourth-century public discourse, Rosenbloom (2002,
2004) is foundational.
46 Ar. Pl. 28-31, 36-8, 49-50, 502-4, 751-6. This formulation shares much with the Ecclesiazousae’s focus
on the inherent selfishness of contemporary Athenians: e.g. Ec. 186-8, 301-10, 376-93, and the entire
scene with the selfish man (Ec. 746-876). Cf. Sommerstein (1984: 330-1).
47 See especially Ar. Pl. 107-11, 363-9, 569-70, 1003. Indeed, in a central agōn that has played a critical
role in recent interpretations of the play, Chremylus and Poverty argue over whether Wealth or Poverty
improves one’s character (Ar. Pl. 558-600). McGlew (1997: 35 with bibliography) rightly points out how,
ever since at least Flashar (1967), the majority of critics have viewed Poverty as a decidedly new and
different viewpoint entering into the comedy. For those who think that her argument is stronger than
Chremylus’, the entire second half of the play seems ironically conceived, at best, or unsettlingly proestablishment,
at worst: e.g. Flashar (1967), Konstan and Dillon (1981), Olson (1993). Somewhat
differently, Heberlein (1981) opposes an ironist approach to the play yet, like Poverty, is suspicious of the
changes that occur at play’s end. On the other hand, McGlew (1997: esp. 39-42) is joined by Sommerstein
(1984) in positing that Poverty represents the weaker of the two sides. I do not come down on any
particular side of this debate; for our purposes, it is crucial that both sides in fact agree that money (or a
lack thereof) determines one’s character.
48 Olson (1990: 228-30), Lévy (1997: 205-6).
148