BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Three
Lysias’ speech On the Property of Aristophanes first lists his father’s benefactions—
including chorēgiai, trierarchies, and eisphorai—and then details that his benefactions
totaled 9 talents and 2,000 drachmas, plus additional minor expenses spent on poorer
citizens (Lys. 19.57-9; cf. 19.29). 52 Further, that elites were using banks or ‘hiding’ their
wealth through property markers (horoi) could have cut both ways, as they could have
done so in order to acquire wealth to pay liturgies. On this view, the negative evaluation
of such ‘hidden’ wealth might reflect, too, that there was growing social distance between
people and the land they owned and worked: the commodification of new things (like
land) signaled new ways in which people related to the world. 53 In a sense, therefore,
Wealth opens up the tantalizing suggestion that these were not so much financial
obligations as obligations that had been financialized. 54
As with Plato’s seemingly proto-modern conception of the dōrodokos,
Aristophanes’ thoroughly financialized perspective might sound oddly familiar to a
52
Similarly, Lys. 19.25 with 19.42-3 and 19.9, 26.3. Cf. Ant. 2.2.12, Is. 6.60. Christ (2006: 172-3) on the
‘cost-consciousness’ of Athenians at this time. Conversely, a typical accusation that a citizen had shirked
his financial obligation often entailed an assessment of the economic outlay that was due the polis. By
insisting that an individual was ‘hiding’ his wealth, that he really had more money than he had let on and
could therefore give more money to the polis than he had already done, such accusations were explicit
claims that an individual had denied the polis a specific economic return: e.g. Ar. Ec. 601-3; Lys. 3.24,
20.23; Isoc. 7.35; Is. 5.35-7, 7.39-40, 11.47-9.
53
This is, admittedly, a contentious claim, one that I le ave only as a suggestion, but see Andreyev (1974:
20), French (1991: 27-30).
54 2
Around this time, in fact, we begin to find honorary crowns of specific monetary amounts: IG i 110.11-
12 (1000 drachmas; 409 BCE), IG ii 2 1 .69-71 (1000 drachmas; 403/2 BCE), IG ii 2 2b.6-8 (300 drachmas;
403/2 BCE; restored, but see Henry [1983: 22]), IG ii 2 103.29-30 (1000 drachmas; 369/8 BCE). As Henry
(1983: 22-5) details, by mid-century this practice had become commonplace: e.g. IG ii 2 223 (500
drachmas; 343/2 BCE), IG ii 2 338.19-21 (1000 drachmas; 333/2 BCE), IG ii/iii 2 1252.7 (500 drachmas, cf.
a)pod]w/sousi toi=j eu)ergetou=[sin a)ci/aj tw=n/ eu)ergethma/twn], 1252.15-16; ca. 350-300 BCE); cf.
Whitehead (1986: 163).
Certainly, this focus on the precise cost of the crown might reflect the community’s desire to
budget expenses better in the wake of its financial problems. Yet undoubtedly one by-product of assessing
the cost ahead of time and publicly announcing it was that the ‘worth’ of deeds could be more readily
calculated. In fact, in the earliest examples, the tamiai (or Hellēnotamiai) were to provide a cash award that
was to be used expressly to create a crown: cf. IG i 2 110.11-12, IG ii 2 1.69-71. As a result, over time
distinct crown ‘values’ came to be associated with different kinds of civic benefactions: typically only
foreigners received 1000-drachma crowns, while Athenians most often were the ones to receive crowns of
500 drachmas. See further Henry (1983: 22-6).
151