BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Seven
after having assessed an indictment brought by any willing citizen. Likely, when it
became clear that the Areopagus would not lodge an indictment, the people stepped in to
ensure collectively that Cimon would be brought to trial by conducting all initial
proceedings on their own, as in a probolē process. 45 The form of Cimon’s trial was thus
highly unusual, designed as if the people were intent on ensuring that the ‘correct’ result
(a conviction) would be reached.
Of course, even despite this exceptional process, Cimon was acquitted by the
Areopagus. As noted above, Ephialtes responded by prosecuting a number of members
of the Areopagus most likely on a charge of dōrodokia, and these trials played a crucial
mediating role between an unacceptable political outcome (Cimon’s acquittal) and
subsequent political innovation (Ephialtes’ reforms). We know regrettably little about
this series of trials, but our sources clearly understood them in tandem with Ephialtes’
legislative reforms: more than mere retributive measures, they were especially public
ways of signaling the illegitimacy of accountability before the Areopagus. 46 Indeed,
Plutarch records that Ephialtes had prosecuted those who had “done injustice to the
dēmos” (tw=n to\n dh=mon a)dikou/ntwn, Plut. Per. 10.8), a phrase that resonates well with
the then incipient slogan of dēmokratia. 47 If Cimon’s trial was, in a sense, ‘about’ control
over the monies of empire, as we saw in Chapter Two, then Ephialtes’ subsequent
prosecution of Areopagites hinged on who should have control over the judicial process.
45 Cf. Carawan (1987: 179). At least by the 420’s the Athenians were certainly concerned that euthynoi,
like those in the Areopagus, might fail to prosecute an offender. So, IG ii² 127.18-20 records an explicit
punishment for euthynoi who failed in this respect. Carawan (1987: 188) suggests that this was an archaic
penalty. If he is correct, then this archaic law becomes early evidence of precisely the kind of abuse of
authority I am positing was feared in Cimon’s trial.
46 Both are posited by Plutarch as reasons for Ephialtes’ murder: Plut. Per. 10.8; cf. AP 27.3-5.
47 Cf. Aesch. Supp. 398-400, 483-5. See especially Raaflaub (2007) on the central role of Ephialtes’
reforms in the emergence of dēmokratia during the 460’s.
318