BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Six
were so enraged by Lycides’ recommendation that they stoned him to death; when the
Athenian women heard what had happened, they went on their own bidding to Lycides’
home and stoned to death his wife and children (Hdt. 9.5). 11 It is likely that Lycides’
contemporaries suspected him of dōrodokia, as Herodotus’ account suggests (cf.
dedegme/noj xrh/mata, Hdt. 9.5). 12 Certainly Lycides acted legally in offering his
counsel, but the very idea of considering surrender to the King was manifestly against the
community’s interests. As per the curse pronounced before every meeting of the
Council, the Athenians responded by bringing destruction upon both Lycides and his
family.
Our main source for this episode presents the Athenians’ reaction—spontaneous,
collective action—as an essentially informal, extra-legal response to Lycides’ purportedly
corrupt counsel, just the sort of response we might expect was demanded by the public
curse. 13 Herodotus’ narrative emphasizes, in particular, the role of hearsay as a preface to
action. It was hearsay and gossip that gathered together community members so that they
could act as a collective whole in combating and controlling the threat posed by Lycides
11 On this episode, see Asheri (1977: 176-9 ad Hdt. 9.5) and Flower and Marincola (2002: 107-8 ad Hdt.
9.5). The story of Lycides is also preserved in Demosthenes, although that passing mention speaks of a
certain Cyrsilus, who before the battle of Salamis (not afterwards, as in Herodotus) suggested that the
Athenians submit to the Persian King. He was subsequently stoned to death for his recommendation. Cf.
Lyc. 1.122, Cic. Off. 3.48 with Verrall (1909) and Allen (2000: 143-5) for further discussion.
12 Ultimately, Herodotus professes ignorance over the real reasons for Lycides’ actions. He presents the
two options using ei)/te dh\...ei)/te kai\...., a phrase which elsewhere in the Histories expresses a difference in
motivation, whether external (ei)/te dh\...) or internal (ei)/te kai\...): Hdt. 1.19, 1.191, 8.54. In all three
examples, both options appear to be equally likely. That said, Herodotus’ conjunction of this episode with
the Thebans’ advice to Mardonius that he bribe the leaders of various Greek poleis was probably not his
own invention, for he himself records that Mardonius did not listen to the Thebans’ suggestion (Hdt. 9.3).
Instead, both Lycides’ purported bribe and the purported conversation between the Thebans and Mardonius
seem to rflect contemporary perceptions of what had happened: cf. Verrall (1909), Hohti (1976: 71),
Nouhaud (1982: 167).
13 In fact, Lycurgus’ version of the story has the Council members explicitly remove their crowns—
thereby acting as citizens, not magistrates—before stoning Lycides (Lyc. 1.122). Allen (2000: 144-5)
notes the ways in which Lycides’ stoning inverted standard procedures for punishment, but these inversions
are perhaps better understood not simply as exceptions made during wartime, but as informal actions by the
dēmos as a whole which need not have followed more formal procedures.
259