BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Four
the dōrodokos that emerged in the second half of the fourth century. In the ‘amnesia’
following the stasis of the late fifth century the dōrodokos had become thoroughly
financialized, but, as the century progressed, he was increasingly viewed in starkly
political terms. As this chapter examines, the thief soon gave way to the traitor.
The image of a traitorous dōrodokos was closely connected to the rise of Philip II
of Macedon, an enormously wealthy king with an impressively large army. 3 Philip’s
progressive gaining of the helm of Greek affairs dominated the political landscape from
the 350’s until his death in 336. Looking back at this period, in 330 in his most famous
speech On the Crown the orator Demosthenes links Philip’s rise to both dōrodokia and
the stasis it bred:
In all the Greek states—not in some but in every one of them—it chanced that there had
sprung up the most abundant crop of traitorous, venal, and profligate politicians ever
known within the memory of mankind. These persons Philip adopted as his satellites and
accomplices. The disposition of Greeks towards one another was already vicious and
quarrelsome; and he made it worse. Some he cajoled; some he bribed; some he corrupted
in every possible way. He split them into many factions, although all had one common
interest—to thwart his aggrandizement. 4
remind that there were significant social and economic factors augmenting these political tensions within
poleis.
3
Under Philip’s guidance, Macedonia developed from a rugged, pastoral society into a cultured and
prosperous, agricultural-based community (Arrian, An. 7.9.2-3). Macedonia was rich in gold and silver
mines (Hdt. 5.17, Thuc. 4.108.1, Diod. 16.8.6) as well as in timber (Dem. 19.89), and Philip developed
both industries to a remarkable degree. During Philip’s heyday from 348 to 336, his coinage was actually
the strongest currency in Europe, and Macedon’s resources were numerous times greater than those of
Athens even during her revival under Lycurgus. With such enormous resources, Diodorus writes, Philip
employed a considerable army which also proved vital to Macedonian expansion (Diod. 16.8.7). On
Philip’s wealth and the success of the Macedonian army, see further Cawkwell (1978: 47-8) and especially
Hammond in Hammond and Griffith (1979: 2.651-71).
4
Dem. 18.61, which I reproduce in full to highlight the tight sequence of dōrodokia, betrayal and stasis (in
bold): para_ ga_r toi=j 3Ellhsin, ou) tisi/n, a)ll' a3pasin o(moi/wj, fora_n fora_n prodotw~n prodotw~n kai kai\ kai kai\\
\ dwrodo&kwn
dwrodo&kwn
kai\ qeoi=j e0xqrw~n a)nqrw&pwn sune/bh gene/sqai tosau&thn o3shn ou)dei/j pw pro&teron me/mnhtai
gegonui=an: ou4j sunagwnista_j kai\ sunergou_j labw_n kai\ pro&teron kakw~j tou_j 3Ellhnaj
e1xontaj pro_j e9autou_j kai\ stasiastikw~j
stasiastikw~j stasiastikw~j e1ti xei=ron die/qhke, tou_j me\n e0capatw~n, toi=j de\ didou&j didou&j, didou&j
tou_j de\ pa&nta tro&pon dia diafqei/rwn
dia diafqei/rwn
fqei/rwn, fqei/rwn kai\ die/sthsen ei0j me/rh polla&, e9no_j tou~ sumfe/rontoj a3pasin
o1ntoj, kwlu&ein e0kei=non me/gan gi/gnesqai. For other references to this ‘crop of traitors’ cf. Aeschin.
3.234, Diod. 16.54.2, 16.85.4 and, generally, Cargill (1985).
170