BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Four
who had played a central role at every step of the way, but others too were publicly
accused, including Demosthenes’ ally Phocion and the anti-Macedonian Hyperides (Plut.
Phoc. 21-22). On Demosthenes’ initiative they turned to the Areopagus to investigate the
matter (e.g. Din. 1.4). After six months of investigation and deliberation, the Areopagus
produced a list of ten names with ten monetary amounts: Demosthenes at the top of the
list, then Demades, Aristogiton and seven others (Hyp. 5.5-7). All ten were tried for
dōrodokia before a jury of 1,500 citizens: of the ten, only Demosthenes and Demades
were convicted for sure; fined 50 talents, Demosthenes left the city in exile. 63
We have four prosecution speeches from the trial—Hyperides’ speech against
Demosthenes (Hyp. 5), and Dinarchus’ three speeches each written on behalf of one of
the prosecutors against Demosthenes, Aristogiton, and Philocles (respectively, Din. 1-
3)—all of which orations employ essentially the same rhetorical strategies against their
opponent. 64 Indeed, this is unsurprising given that, beyond the Areopagus’ terse report
(Hyp. 5.5-7), there was no evidence against the defendants. Here we will focus on
Dinarchus’ speech against Demosthenes, by far the longest and best preserved of the
foursome (Din. 1). As we will see, although the nature of the trial naturally focused on
condemning Demosthenes, in Dinarchus’ speech the greatest threat to the city was not
63 Demades’ punishment is mentioned in Din.1.29, 104. Of the other citizens on trial, Philocles was
probably convicted (cf. Dem. Ep. 3.31-2); Aristogiton was acquitted (Dem. Ep. 3.37, 42), as perhaps were
Hagnonides and Polyeuctus of Sphettus ([Plut.] Mor. 846c-d). This split in convictions based on the exact
same evidence has only reinforced scholars’ suspicions that the Harpalus Affair was a political trial aimed
at removing Demosthenes and Demades from Athens: so, for example, Worthington (1992: 58-73; 1994:
308-9; 2000b: 106); cf. Badian (1961: 34-5). While this possibility cannot be ruled out, it should be noted
that, although the prosecution admittedly had the same positive evidence against each defendant—i.e. the
Areopagus’ report (Din. 1.113, 2.21; Hyp. 5.5-7)—the assumption that the same evidence fit the character
and history of each defendant identically is erroneous. After all, forensic oratory is rife with ethical
arguments which predicated the plausibility of guilt or innocence on a defendant’s character. Thus, despite
the Areopagus’ report, it might have been easy to believe that Demosthenes, but not Aristogiton, say, was
the kind of person who would readily be suspected of being part of a network of corruption.
64 Recent commentaries on these speeches are provided in Whitehead (2000) for Hyperides and
Worthington (2000b) for Dinarchus.
196