BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Four
Throughout this tumultuous period, there was a considerable tension brewing
among Athens’ citizens, as some seemed to acquiesce to the Macedonian hegemony
while others grew only more restless, awaiting the right moment to score some
advantage, however small. The divided citizen body fragmented the democracy, and in
the 330’s we find some hints that Athenians feared that Philip or Alexander would install
a tyranny at Athens. 46 At the same time there was an acute focus on Demokratia, the
abstract embodiment of the Athenian democracy. In 333/2, for instance, a statue of
Demokratia was set up, and later the generals for the year made sacrifices to
Demokratia. 47 Contemporary authors appeared newly intent on determining the essence
of the Athenian democracy, and discussions about the patrios politeia, or ancestral
constitution, were common. 48 As a direct result of these concerns, the authority of the
Areopagus court only increased, taking on new powers of investigation (apophasis) and
reclaiming its ancient status as ‘guardian of the laws’ and the democracy; and this was
but part of a broader shift after the Social War towards more centralized administration. 49
46 Cf. [Dem.] 17.14, Hyp. 2fr.1. Hence, Ostwald (1955: 123-5) and Teegarden (2007: 109-15) tie
Eukrates’ law against tyranny and subversion of the dēmos to anti-Macedonian sentiment. In response,
Mossé (1970) paints too one-sided a view of Athenian politics in the 330’s: granted, anti-Macedonian
sentiment would not have been prudent after Chaeronea, but resentment of Macedonian control was not
mere rhetoric; one wonders, after all, why a jury would have so overwhelmingly voted in Demosthenes’
favor at Ctesiphon’s trial if Demosthenes’ political views were marginal. Although Sealey (1958) is right to
point out the potentially ad hominem spirit of the law, he too is unconvincing in wholly removing its
Macedonian dimension. That said, it is enough for our purposes simply that the law was part of the
period’s back-and-forth political battles.
47 A base from the statue has been found: IG ii² 2791. Sacrifices: IG ii² 1496.131-2, 140-1. Similarly,
Euphranor of Isthmia was known to have done a wall a painting in the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios with
representations of Demos and Demokratia together with Athens’ legendary founder Theseus (Paus. 1.3.3-
4), and the anti-tyranny decree of 337/6 was inscribed beneath a depiction of Demokratia crowning the
Demos. For these contemporary actions and more on behalf of Demokratia, Raubitschek (1962) remains
foundational.
48 E.g. [Dem] 59.75-7; Isoc. 12.143-8; Lyc. 1 passim. Ruschenbusch (1958: esp. 399-408 on the Solonian
Consitution), Mossé (1978), Hansen (1989). For a thorough review of Demosthenes’ conception of the
patrios politeia, see Witte (1995).
49 In the late 350’s or 340’s the Areopagus was granted additional powers to draft a public report (called an
apophasis) concerning suspected acts of treason: cf. Din. 1.50. On the apophasis procedure and its
significance, see Carawan (1985), Wallace (1989: 113-9), Worthington (1992: 357-62), de Bruyn (1995:
189