BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Four
city’s anti-Macedonian leaders. Though initially forbidden to enter the city with a
sizeable number of troops, he was later granted entry as a suppliant. Immediately, there
arrived envoys from Alexander’s mother and Antipater, the viceroy of Greece,
demanding that Harpalus return the treasure he had stolen (Hyp. 5.8; Diod. 17.108.7). In
response, Demosthenes proposed that Harpalus be held in jail and the treasure be placed
in the Acropolis for safe-keeping until official word from Alexander arrived (Din. 1.70,
89, 90; [Plut.] X. Or. 846b). The people agreed and decided that Harpalus’ money—
which the Macedonian claimed totaled 700 talents (Hyp. 5.9-10; [Plut.] X.Or. 846b)—
would be taken to the Acropolis the following day. The next day, Demosthenes departed
for Olympia on a political embassy; upon his return, Harpalus escaped from prison, and
the Athenians discovered much to their dismay that only 350 talents remained in the
Acropolis. 62
It was assumed that Harpalus had used the missing 350 talents to bribe his way to
freedom; most of the city’s leaders were consequently under suspicion. This was a truly
grave offense, for the Athenians could not have imagined that Alexander would be happy
that they had let escape a former official who had stolen a tremendous sum from the
King. The city panicked amid a growing number of accusations of treason and plots
against the people (Ath. 8.341f-342). Most of the suspicion focused on Demosthenes,
62 The Harpalus Affair cannot properly be understood without reference to the larger political context of
Alexander’s return from India, at which time the king decreed that all Greek poleis accept the return of
their exiles and mercenaries—displaced groups whose presence posed a direct threat to Alexander (cf. Hyp.
5.18-19). Though the Exiles Decree loomed large in the background of the Harpalus Affair—in particular
Athens, wishing to retain Samos rather than have the island’s exiled population return, sought to appease
Alexander perhaps by getting rid of his antagonist Demosthenes—this political background does not play
any discernible role in how the prosecution condemned Demosthenes. In other words, it is in itself
significant that the specific, compelling arguments used to convict Demosthenes refer only to this second
narrative of dōrodokia qua treason and not at all to Demosthenes’ adversarial relations with Alexander.
Moreover, it is not at all clear that Demosthenes’ role in the Harpalus Affair would have placed Athens in
any more precarious role vis. Alexander: as Dinarchus reports, Alexander never even asked that Harpalus’
money be returned (Din. 1.68). On the historical and political context, see further Badian (1961), Sealey
(1993: 212-15), Whitehead (2000: 355-64), Worthington (2000b: 41-77).
195