BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Two
intertwined with two other developments in the fifth-century democracy: Athenian
imperialism and the politics of patronage. As Cimon suggests, the relation between the
two intimately shaped the figure of the dōrodokos. Let us take a brief step back, then,
and trace the narrative arcs of these two developments before returning to how they were
combined in the figure of the dōrodokos.
Cimon’s fateful campaign was conducted under the auspices of the Delian
League, an offensive and defensive alliance formed among Athens and a large number of
Greek poleis in the years after the Persian Wars. 8 While Thucydides records that the
pretext for the League’s formation was to gain revenge on Persia by ravaging the Great
King’s territory (Thuc. 1.96), in fact almost from the League’s formation Athens appears
to have used the League to pursue its own agenda of controlling Aegean trade routes to
the Hellespont. 9 Indeed, the League had a peculiarly Athenian flavor to it. Allies
contributed either money or military forces—men and ships—to the League’s campaigns,
but the size of a polis’ contribution was assessed and then collected by Athenians. 10 As
the demands of the League heaped up, more and more of the allies chose to pay money
8
AP 23.5 calls it an offensive/defensive alliance. Background to and formation of the Delian League:
Thuc. 1.94-97.1.
9
Certainly, the Spartan-run Hellenic League that preceded the Delian League appears to have focused on
driving the Persians out of the Aegean and the coast of Asia Minor: note in particular the expeditions
against Cyprus and Byzantium (Thuc. 1.94.2), continued under Cimon (Plut. Cim. 12.1, DS 11.60-2). Yet
under the Delian League, even attacks against a Persian outpost like Eion (476/5?) seemed less about
ravaging the King’s land and more about gaining financial footholds in the region. Within a decade, Athens
had founded a colony at Amphipolis a bit further up the Strymon river from Eion, and even the siege at
Skyros may have been over disgruntled trade relations (cf. Plut. Cim. 8.4). While doubtless a number of
anti-Persian campaigns were launched by the League—as in the Chersonese (Plut. Cim. 14.1)—it is crucial
how the non-Persian campaigns changed the character of Athens’ relations to her allies, and from the first
years of the League, at that. On the meaning of ‘pretext’ (pro/sxhma, Thuc. 1.96) here, I follow Rawlings
(1977) in positing that Thucydides offers the (false) reason for the formation of the Delian League; my
argument is not affected if we follow Kallet-Marx’ (1993: 44-5) interpretation of the passage as
understanding the reason for collecting tribute.
10
The Athenian leader Aristides first assessed the tribute, or phoros (AP 23.5, Plut. Arist. 24). The
Hellēnotamiai who ministered the phoros were elected by and from the Athenians: Thuc.1.96.2.
Additionally, Athenian leaders were the commanders of League expeditions.
86