BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Six an expressed penalty of 10,000 drachmas. 26 What the decree omits is that it surely would have been the logistai who originally determined that ‘injustice’ had been done. In order to regulate new challenges posed by changes in Athens’ political economy, therefore, the domains of the logistai and euthynoi may have been combined—at first on an ad hoc basis, as the Clinias decree suggests, but presumably on an increasingly regular basis. Only with the combination of these two domains is it intelligible that the Clinias decree calls for a monetary penalty instead of the punishment of atimia we might expect from the original law against dōrodokia. Around the same time, in fact, we find another fine of 10,000 drachmas for the stratēgos Phormio, prosecuted in 428 likely for dōrodokia; in 424 the stratēgos Eurymedon was similarly fined for committing dōrodokia. 27 Monetary penalties like these were frequently employed at Athens for not fulfilling contractual, usually financial, obligations. 28 Within the context of tribute collection, the use of a monetary fine thus followed straightforwardly as a way of first assessing the damage done to the tribute and then exacting reciprocal payment in return, as penalty. 29 The sum of 10,000 drachmas, or 1 2/3 talents, was considerable, equivalent 26 [...hoi( de\ pruta/]nej e)sag[o/nton]/ e)j te\m bole\n [te\n grafe\n he/n ti]j a2g grafeta[i e2 eu)q]-/une/sqo do/ro[n muri/aisi draxm]e? =s[i h]e/kastoj (IG i³ 34=ML 46.35-7). Similarly, although the Assessment Decree (425/4) omits any mention of dōra, it also lays out a euthyna for officials, with a penalty of 10,000 drachmas, in case the tribute is not paid (IG i³ 71.36-7). The dating of the Clinias decree is controversial: the discussion at ML 46 and Meritt and Wade-Gery (1962) suggest 448/7, while Mattingly (1961: 150-69) reasserts the formerly orthodox view of 425/4 or later: see AE 165-73 for discussion. Although it does not affect my argument, I follow the earlier dating of 448/7. 27 Thuc. 4.65.3 and Philochorus FGrH 328 F127, as recorded by schol. V ad Ar. Vesp. 240, which is itself derived from Thucydides’ account, are our only sources for Phormio’s trial; see also Roberts (1982: 115- 17). It is unclear whether Eurymedon and his fellow stratēgoi were convicted at a euthyna or at an eisangelia: Philochorus is silent on the matter, and Thucydides’ testimony records only that “the Athenians in the city” (oi( e)n th| = po/lei 0Aqhnai/oi, Thuc. 4.65.3) heard the trial, a phrase which could refer to either kind of process. 28 Böckh (1886: 439-54), Lipsius (1905-15: 688ff.), Hall (1996: 73-8). In part, financial penalties were a way to restore and uphold reciprocity in the city—so Allen (2000: 225)—but large fines could certainly also signal the gravity of an offense: Humphreys (1988: 471). 29 Dinarchus is explicit on this point: the creation of a tenfold fine prevented politicians from profiting from dōrodokia (Din. 1.60). 267
Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Six to roughly 30 years of pay for public office: enough to be a strong deterrent to any official who might tamper with the tribute, yet probably also enough to repay, and then some, whatever sum had gone missing in the first place. 30 Accordingly, in a period when the Athenians were anxious over suspected dōrodokia involving the tribute, the employment of a monetary fine signaled that within the law the Athenians were framing this new type of dōrodokia as both misconduct and mismanagement of funds. This reconstruction must remain speculative, but it seems warranted by the actual monetary fines which were meted out in the fifth and fourth centuries. We do not know for how much Eurymedon was fined—nor do we know whether his fellow stratēgoi Sophocles and Pythodorus were likewise fined 31 —but it is significant that the fines for Phormio, the Clinias decree, the Assessment decree, and perhaps Eurymedon were for a fixed amount: 10,000 drachmas. 32 By contrast, fourth-century sources describe the 30 In the fifth century, Councilors were normally paid 5 obols per day (6 obols=1 drachma; 6000 drachmas=1 talent). By comparison, in a public works project from the late fifth century, unskilled workers were paid 3 obols a day, skilled workers 1 drachma (cf. IG i² 373-4). 31 Most likely they were sentenced to death: Hansen (1975: 36 and numbers 7-9), Hamel (1998: 144) contra the standard account, which follows our sources in saying that Sophocles and Pythodorus were given the explicit punishment of exile. Thucydides’ account of the trial, followed verbatim in only this respect by Philochorus, says that Sophocles and Pythodorus were ‘punished with exile’ (fugh= | e)zhmi/wsan, Thuc. 4.65.3; cf. fugh= | zhmiwqh=nai, Philochorus FGrH 328 F127). Yet, as MacDowell (1978: 255) reminds, the Athenians used exile as an explicit punishment only for unintentional homicides and sometimes for treason trials; the majority of ‘exiles’, like those implicated in the mutilation of the Herms, were actually self-imposed, when a citizen refused to stand trial and was convicted (and often sentenced to death) in absentia. In fact, nowhere else is exile—instead of atimia—attested as a punishment for dōrodokia. When we do find ‘exile’ cropping up in dōrodokia trials, it is because a citizen voluntarily went into exile rather than stood trial. As Hansen (1975: 36) documents, sources indicate that the accused in an eisangelia was ‘exiled’ when actually a capital punishment had been commuted to exile. So, for instance, although the ambassadors Andocides, Epicrates, Eubulides, and Cratinus were condemned to death in absentia (Dem. 19.277-80), Philochorus says that they were punished with exile (e)fuga/deusan, Philochorus FGrH 328 F149); Philocrates, too, was condemned to death in absentia (Aeschin. 2.6, cf. fuga/j, Aeschin. 3.79). Cf. Isoc. 16.45, Xen. Hell. 5.4.19, Aeschin. 3.171, Lyc. 1.93. It should be noted that Thucydides may have intentionally masked the agency involved in the exile of Sophocles and Pythodorus in order to reinforce his point that the arrogance of the dēmos was once again at fault (cf. Thuc. 4.65.4). 32 Phormio’s fine is reported as 100 mnae, which is equivalent to 10,000 drachmas. Although it does not significantly affect my argument, I suspect that, given the identical fines of the Clinias and Assessment decrees, Phormio’s penalty was a fixed amount, not a tenfold fine. Androtion writes simply that Phormio 268
Page 1 and 2:
BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam
Page 3 and 4:
© Copyright by Kellam McChesney Co
Page 5 and 6:
legislating dōrodokia. Rather than
Page 7 and 8:
encouragement that made me crazily
Page 9 and 10:
and long-lasting patience were crit
Page 11 and 12:
CHAPTER SEVEN: Athenian dōrodokia
Page 13 and 14:
Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
Page 277: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363:
show all

BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?