BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua
BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua
Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Four This narrative of dōrodokia was used to delegitimize opponents even in unexpected situations. In one fascinating case from the early 320’s, known from Hyperides’ speech On Behalf of Euxenippus, the defendant Euxenippus was prosecuted for speaking publicly against Athens’ interests after taking a bribe. 42 As the narrative goes, after sacking Thebes in 336, Alexander the Great gave Athens the territory in neighboring Oropus, where there was a shrine to the local deity Amphiaraus. Athens divided the territory into five regions, one for every two tribes. There was a problem with the division, however, as the area surrounding the shrine to Amphiaraus—area which had been consigned to two of the tribes—was thought to belong to the god and therefore could not be divvied up for those tribes (cf. Hyp. 4.16). So Euxenippus and two other Athenians were sent to sleep in Amphiaraus’ shrine, that they might have a prophetic dream from the god about who owned the land (Hyp. 4.15-18). Euxenippus reported that the land belonged to the god, whereupon one Polyeuctus proposed that the two tribes be compensated for being deprived of the land. He was immediately tried and convicted for proposing a contradictory law (graphē paranomōn, cf. Hyp. 4.15), after 139-43 ad 1.10); Diod. 17.4.8, [Plut.] X. Or. 848a. In his speech Against Ctesiphon (Aeschines 3), Aeschines plays off this common accusation of treasonous bribe-taking when describing Demosthenes’ dealings with the Persian King (Aeschin. 3.238-40). Although the King had initially refused to send any gold to Athens, in 336 he sent 300 talents to win the city as an ally, a gift which the Athenians refused to accept. Still, Demosthenes purportedly ended up pocketing 70 talents of that money, probably as an inducement to persuade Athens to ally with Persia. Here, rather than accuse Demosthenes of having simply taken money against Athens’ interests, Aeschines claims that Demosthenes took the King’s money and committed treason by refusing to spend even 10 talents to help Athens’ ally Thebes fight against Alexander. Demosthenes’ inaction resulted in Thebes’ destruction; for this reason, Aeschines suggests, Demosthenes was a danger to Athens (Aeschin. 3.24). Dinarchus and Hyperides, too, later call Demosthenes a traitor for the same reason: Din. 1.10, 1.15, 1.18-21, 1.24, 1.26; Hyp. 5.17, 5.21. 42 Hyperides quotes the charge from the nomos eisangeltikos, under which Euxenippus was prosecuted: Hyp. 4.1-2, 4-10, 27-30, 38-9. For the wording of this law, see Hansen (1975: 12), Whitehead (2000: 187-9 ad 4.8). 185
Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Four which he retaliated by prosecuting Euxenippus on the grounds that he had been bribed to misreport his dream and to speak against the interests of the city (Hyp. 4.30, 39). 43 What is remarkable about this case is that Polyeuctus accuses Euxenippus of taking bribes not from the enemy (i.e. Alexander), but from other Athenians. Hyperides underscores the paradox of the prosecution’s claims: how could Euxenippus have been bribed to speak against Athens’ interests if he was receiving bribes from other Athenians? Though we lack Polyeuctus’ speech, we can piece together a tentative answer. Apparently, his prosecution depicted Euxenippus as a Macedonian “toady” (ko/laka, Hyp. 4.20; cf. kolakei/a, 4.19, 23), one who had already committed treason by doing favors for Alexander’s mother Olympias. Moreover, Polyeuctus seems to have claimed that Euxenippus had been bribed by traitors within Athens, people who were acting against the dēmos (u(penanti/a pra/ttontaj tw| = dh/mw|, Hyp. 4.39), that is, other pro- Macedonians. Though at first glance this case seems to be about Athenian internal affairs—how the tribes were to distribute the land in Oropus—the narrative framework of Polyeuctus’ prosecution speech actually shared much with the Demosthenic narrative examined above. Euxenippus’ purported dōrodokia was readily explained through reference to a network of pro-Macedonian conspirators within the city. Although Hyperides masterfully illuminates the seemingly tortured logic of Polyeuctus’ case, it is significant that Polyeuctus, like Demosthenes before him, understood Euxenippus’ purported dōrodokia as the act of a traitor plotting with the enemy from within the city’s walls. Philip and Beyond: dōrodokia as a Threat to the Democracy: 43 See further Whitehead (2000: 153-61) on the historical background to this speech. 186
- Page 145 and 146: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 147 and 148: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 149 and 150: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 151 and 152: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 153 and 154: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 155 and 156: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 157 and 158: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 159 and 160: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 161 and 162: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 163 and 164: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 165 and 166: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 167 and 168: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 169 and 170: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 171 and 172: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 173 and 174: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 175 and 176: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 177 and 178: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 179 and 180: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 181 and 182: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 183 and 184: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 185 and 186: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 187 and 188: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 189 and 190: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 191 and 192: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 193 and 194: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 195: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 199 and 200: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 201 and 202: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 203 and 204: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 205 and 206: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 207 and 208: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 209 and 210: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 211 and 212: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 213 and 214: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 215 and 216: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 217 and 218: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 219 and 220: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 221 and 222: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 223 and 224: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 225 and 226: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 227 and 228: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 229 and 230: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 231 and 232: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 233 and 234: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 235 and 236: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 237 and 238: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 239 and 240: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 241 and 242: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 243 and 244: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
- Page 245 and 246: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Four<br />
which he retaliated by prosecuting Euxenippus on the grounds that he had been bribed to<br />
misreport his dream and to speak against the interests of the city (Hyp. 4.30, 39). 43<br />
What is remarkable about this case is that Polyeuctus accuses Euxenippus of<br />
taking bribes not from the enemy (i.e. Alexander), but from other Athenians. Hyperides<br />
underscores the paradox of the prosecution’s claims: how could Euxenippus have been<br />
bribed to speak against Athens’ interests if he was receiving bribes from other Athenians?<br />
Though we lack Polyeuctus’ speech, we can piece together a tentative answer.<br />
Apparently, his prosecution depicted Euxenippus as a Macedonian “toady” (ko/laka,<br />
Hyp. 4.20; cf. kolakei/a, 4.19, 23), one who had already committed treason by doing<br />
favors for Alexander’s mother Olympias. Moreover, Polyeuctus seems to have claimed<br />
that Euxenippus had been bribed by traitors within Athens, people who were acting<br />
against the dēmos (u(penanti/a pra/ttontaj tw| = dh/mw|, Hyp. 4.39), that is, other pro-<br />
Macedonians.<br />
Though at first glance this case seems to be about Athenian internal affairs—how<br />
the tribes were to distribute the land in Oropus—the narrative framework of Polyeuctus’<br />
prosecution speech actually shared much with the Demosthenic narrative examined<br />
above. Euxenippus’ purported dōrodokia was readily explained through reference to a<br />
network of pro-Macedonian conspirators within the city. Although Hyperides<br />
masterfully illuminates the seemingly tortured logic of Polyeuctus’ case, it is significant<br />
that Polyeuctus, like Demosthenes before him, understood Euxenippus’ purported<br />
dōrodokia as the act of a traitor plotting with the enemy from within the city’s walls.<br />
Philip and Beyond: dōrodokia as a Threat to the Democracy:<br />
43 See further Whitehead (2000: 153-61) on the historical background to this speech.<br />
186