zelnick-abrampvitz, did patronage exist in classical athens

8/11/2019 Zelnick-Abrampvitz, Did Patronage Exist in Classical Athens

1/17

LAntiquit Classique

Did Patronage Exist in Classical Athens?Author(s): Rachel Zelnick-AbramovitzSource: LAntiquit Classique, T. 69 (2000), pp. 65-80Published by: LAntiquit ClassiqueStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41660036.

Accessed: 17/07/2013 18:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

LAntiquit Classiqueis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toLAntiquit

Classique.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 181.47.45.65 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:17:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=antiqclasshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41660036?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41660036?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=antiqclass


2/17

Did

Patronage

Exist

in

Classical

Athens?*

The

question

whether he

patron-client

elations uch as existed n

ancient

Rome,

or

patronage

n its modern

ociological

definition,

as also a feature f

classicalAthenian

ociety

as receivedmuch

ttention

n

recent

tudies. his ndeed s

an

important

uestion

which an lead to a

better

nderstanding

f

the

functioning

f

Athenian ociety nd enable itscomparisonwithother ncient nd modern re-

capitalistic

nd

pre-bureaucratic

ocieties. et the nswers

iven y

cholars end o be

equivocal

nd

sometimesven

self-contradictory.

n theone

hand,

t s claimed hat

patron-client

elations id not xist n

Athens,

r that t existed

nly

n the rchaic

r

Hellenistic

eriods.

On

the

other

hand,

n

attempt

as

been made to differentiate

between

personal atronage',

he xistence f which

s

practically

enied,

nd

public

patronage',

hich

s

supposed

o have

characterizedhe

working

f Athenian

olitics

in the

lassical

period.

While he erms

atron

nd

patronage

re used n these tudies

to claimor

to

deny

hat t

existed

n theone form

r

the

other

n

Greek

ociety,

heir

relevance r

meaning

n

the

pecific

reek

ontext as not

been

xplained1.

TheuseoftheRoman ermatronndealingwithGreek ocietysparticularly

evident n

a

1989

collection f articles

edicated o

the

theme f

patronage

n

the

ancientworld. n the

preface

o this

ollection he

ditor,

.

Wallace-Hadrill,

eferso

the

cceptance

f

sociological

definitions

f

patronage y

historiansnd to thenew

questions

t

nvolves.

e

concedes

hat

heRomanmodel s too narrow o account or

similar

phenomena

n

other ncient

ocieties.

Moreover,

he Roman

vocabulary

associated with

patronage

elations

was

itself

nuanced.

Therefore,

he

accepted

definition

f

patronage

n this ollections basedon the

ociological

model:

patronage

I am

most

rateful

oProfs. . PerlmanndZ.

Rubin,

ho ead n earlier ersionf

this

aper,

or heir omments.eedless o

say

that

ny

laws re

my esponsibility.

1 Nor, or his urpose,as t been xplained hat smeant yusing heseRoman

terms:he

atronicium

s reflected

y

he welve

ablets,

r henormsf he ate

epublic?

See for

xample

.

Millett,

Patronage

nd Its Avoidance n

Classical

Athens

in

A. Wallace-Hadrill

(ed.),

Patronage

n

Ancient

ociety

London, 989,

.

15-47;

.C.

HUMPHREYS,

ublic nd Privatenterestsn

Classical

Athensin

CJ,

73

(1977/8),

.

102;

J.K.

Davies,

Wealthnd the ower

f

Wealthn

Classical

AthensNew

York, 981,

.

97;

M.I.

Finley,

Politics n theAncientWorld

Cambridge,

983,

p.

46-47;

P.J.

Rhodes,

Political

Activity

n

Classical Athens

in

J

HS,

106

(1986),

p.

134-142;

P.

Millett,

Lending

nd

Borrowing

n Ancient thens

Cambridge,

991,

p.

48-51,

78,

284

n.

16,

292

n.

24;

T.W.

Gallant,

Risk and

Survival

n Ancient

reece

Cambridge,

991,

p.

146, 151, 159-166;

. von

Reden,

Exchange

n Ancient reece

London, 995,

p.

9,

110, 128, 179, 199;

L.J.

MITCHELL,

reeks

earingGifts.

he Public Use

of

Private

Relationshipsn theGreekWorld, 35-323BC Cambridge,997,p. 1,42. J.Ober,

Mass and Elite

n Democratic

thens

Princeton,989,

.

58, 67, 228-230,

ffers more

cautious iscussion. .

Moss,

Les relations e clientle ans e

fonctionnement

e la

dmocratie

thnienne

m

Mtis, -10,

1994-95

1998],

ame o

my

ttention

nly

fter

this rticle as been

ccepted

or

publication

nd therefore

an refer o it

only

n

the

footnotes.oss

oouses heRoman

erms,

ut

enerally

er deas

omplement

y

wn.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/17

66

R. ZELNICK-ABRAMOVITZ

is a 'personal elationshiphich nvolves xchanges f services vertimebetween

two

parties

f differenttatus'2.

his definitionakes nto onsiderationhe lack of

corresponding

ocabulary'

n the

Greek world3.

Altogether,

t is

agreed

that he

'strategic

unction

f such

relations...

was

successfully

educed o a minimum'

n

classical

Athens,

hat

atronage

as not reated s an issue

by

Greek

historians,

nd

that his s indicative

f a

sharp

ontrastetween

reek

ndRoman ocieties'4. hese

conclusions

re drawn rom . Millett's rticle n classical

Athens,

hich s the

nly

one of the leven rticles n thisbook to deal withGreek

ociety.

his

proportion

s

significant,

nd it

appears

to arise from he

general

onsensus hat

patron-client

relations,

f

they

existed at

all in

Greek

society,

did so in a

very

imited nd

insignificantanner.

Thus,

scholars' adherence o either

he

Roman model or the models set

by

modern

ociologists

ends o ead them o an

impasse.

he

approach

eems o be that

if

Greek

ources

yield

no evidence f technical ermsdentical o

Roman

atron

nd

client of rules f behavior

learly

xpressed

y

these

erms,

r of relations hich an

be

strictly

nterpreted

ccording

o

patronage

odels,

hen

bviously

atronage

idnot

exist n

Greek

ociety,

r texisted

nly

n

pre-

nd

post-classical

imes.

Nonetheless,

thedistinctive

reek

ocabulary

oncerned ith

nterpersonal

elations

hich

as no

simple

ranslationntoother

anguages

ndeed

uggests

hat

omething

hat an be

spoken

of in terms f

patronage

id exist n

ancientGreek

society,

ven if the

functionnd

expressions

f these elations id

not

necessarily

onformo theRoman

or the ociologicalmodels.

Therefore,

t

may

be useful o examine he

Greek erms sed to characterize

interpersonal

elations ithin oth he

private

ndthe

public

pheres

f ancient

reek

society,

n

order

o

ascertain he xtent o which Roman r a

sociological

model f

patronage

an

be

applied

o ancient reek

ociety.

*

It s

generallygreed

hat

nterpersonal

elationsn

Greek

ociety

onsisted f

reciprocity

nd

obligation,

ndthat he

key

word

n

such

relations as

cpiicx

a word

usually

ranslated

nadequately

ut

nevitably

s

'friendship'5.

he

concept

f

philia,

2

A. Wallace-Hadrill

(ed.),

p.

cit.

n. 1),

p.

1-4.

Although

have

ead tudies

f

patronage

n modern

ocieties ndfound hem sefuln some

espects,

do not ntendo

use them ere.A

most

nteresting

nd

lluminating

tudy

n a

modern reek

ommunity

s

J.K.

ampbell,

onour

Family

nd

Patronage.

study

f

nstitutionsndMoralValues

n

a

GreekMountain

ommunity

Oxford,

964.

ee also

S.N. Eisenstadt & L.

Roniger,

Patron-Clientelationss a Model

f tructuring

ocial

Exchange

n

Comparative

tudies

in

Society

nd

History

22

(1980),

p.

42-77.

3

Wallace-Hadrill,

op.

cit.

n. 1),

p.

4. Cf.

Moss,

oc. cit.

n.

1),

p.

147 and

n. 6.

4

Wallace-Hadrill,

op.

cit.

n. 1),p.

8.

5

Thefollowingsonly selectedist:A.W.H.Adkins,Merit ndResponsibility:

Study

n GreekValues

Oxford, 960; d.,

Friendship

nd

Self-Sufficiency

nHomer

and

Aristotle

in

C,

13

(1963),

p.

30-45;

W.R.

Connor,

TheNew

Politicians

f Fifth-

Century

Athens

Princeton, .J.,

1971;

P.

Veyne,

Le

pain

et

le

cirque

sociologie

historique

'un

pluralisme

olitique

Paris, 976;

N.R.E.

Fisher,

ocial Values n

Classical

Athens

London, 976;

Th.

W.

Gallant,

Agricultural

ystems,

and Tenure

nd the

Reformsf

Solon,

n

ABSA,

11

(1982),

p.

111-124;

.

Taillardat,

&iXir), loxiq

t



4/17

DID

PATRONAGEXIST

N

CLASSICAL

THENS? 67

which riginallyepicted elations ithin familyr between riends, aseventually

attributedo

nterpersonal

elations

n

a

much

roader

ense6. ts

vocabulary

ontained

not

only

words ike

philia

and

philos

but lso

%


5/17


6/17

DID

PATRONAGEXIST N

CLASSICAL

THENS?

69

between nequals, ogether ith ther ermswhich eflectnequal elationssuchas

TtpoGTrri

nd

kxxJ;,

hichwillbe discussed

elow),

intend o show hat social

phenomenon

imilar

but

by

no means dentical to

patronage

n

its

Roman or

sociological

orm

xisted n Athenian

ociety.

also contend hat hedifferentiation

between

ersonal

nd

publicpatronage

whose

meaning

n

Athenian erms

will be

discussed

elow)

was not

elevantn democratic

thens,

here he ine

eparating

he

individualitizen rom he

ommunity

as

very

ine,

n

both

deology

nd

praxis.

*

Let us first xamine hefamous

tory

old

by

Xenophon

Mem.,

I,

9),

about

Crito nd Archedemus. rito omplainshat ife nAthens s difficultor manwho

wants o mindhis own business.

He is now

being

ubjected

o law

suits

by

people

who

think hathe wouldrather

ay

them han

ndergo

trial.

ocrates

uggests

e

should

keep

xpipeiv) 'watchdog',

s he does

withhis

sheep,

n

order

o fend ff

those who

attempt

o

injure

him. When Crito

expresses

his concern

hat uch a

person

might

urn

gainst

him,

Socrates ssures

him that

person

ike thatwould

rather

lease %ap(ea0ai)

a

man ike

Crito

nd

profit

y

t and

that here re

many

people

n

Athenswho would

atisfy

heir ove of honor

(piXoxijiia) y being

hiloi

of such

man s Crito.

eeking

uch

'watchdog', hey

ound

Archedemus,

howas

skilled n

speaking

nd

acting

eircev

ai

repayai)

but

poor11.

rito

gave

himfood

and farm

products,

nvited

him to sacrificial

feasts,

and showed his

concern

(eniniXeia) forhim nall matters.n return,rchedemusued Crito's nemies nd

agreed

o withdrawhe ctions

n

exchange

or

hewithdrawalf

charges gainst

rito

and

money ompensation.

e

came

to

regard

rito's

house s a

refuge

ndtreated

im

with

reat espect.

rito's

hiloi

asked

him o makeArchedemus

heir

rotector

oo,

andArchedemus

indly bliged

Chco

%apexo).

Whenever

rchedemus'

nemies

reproached

im

by aying

hat e

was

flattering

koxk'>oi)

rito

ecause

he

profited

from

im,

Archedemus

ould nswer:what

s more

hameful,

o receive haris

rom

good

men nd returnharis and

so make

hem

hiloi

and become

he

nemy

f

bad

men,

r to

do

wrong

o the

good

and make hem nemies

nd

try

o make

friends

ith

thebad

by

helping

hem?'

Henceforth

rchedemus as one

of

Crito's

hiloi

nd was

respectedyCrito's therhiloi.

The verb

trephein

which

have translated

ere s 'to

keep',

has

the basic

meaning

f

'nourishing',

feeding'.

The

analogy

made

by

Socrates

between

he

trephein

f a man

nd the

rephein

f

a

watchdog

ndeed eemsto

convey

he

xact

nature f the

relationship

ventually

stablished

etweenCrito

and Archedemus.

Archedemus

as chosen

not

nly

ecause

he was an

able

speaker,

ut lso because

he

was

poor

and therefore eeded

material

upport

nd

'friends'of

higher

tatus.

Accordingly,

is

relationship

ith

Crito

was a

relationship

etween

wo

parties

f

unequal

status

who

exchanged

ervices nd

goods.

Archedemus

as

one of those

11

ThisArchedemuss probablyhe neridiculedycomic oetsEupolis,fr. ; 80Kassel& AustinPCG

;

Ar.,

Ran.,420-425,

88)

and aid

by

Xen.,Hell., , 7,2,tohave

been democratic

eader,

ne of

the ccusers

f the

generals

fter

rginousai,

rascal

(Lys.,

14.

25),

and

pro-Thebean

Aesch.,

3, 139;

Plut.,

De Gen.

Soc.,

1

[Mor.,

75d]).

See

Connor,

op.

cit.

n. 5),

p.

35,

n.

1;

R.

Osborne,

Vexatious

itigation

n Classical

Athens:

ykophancy

nd the

Sykophant,

n P.

Cartledge,

P.

Millett & S.

Todd

(eds),

Nomos.

ssays

n Athenian

aw,

Politics

nd

Society, ambridge,

990,

p.

97-98.



7/17

70

R.

ZELNICK-ABRAMOVrrZ

people, according o Socrates,who fulfill heir hilotimiabycultivatinghilia-

relations with a

person

of

Crito's status.

This is

not true

friendship,

ut a

businesslike

elationship,

hich onsists

f

mutual nterestnd

reciprocity.

nother

component

n this

philia

is

loyalty:

Crito's concern hat hiskind of man

might

change oyalties

oints

o

the

hifting

ature f such

relations,

utSocrates ssures

him

hat t s worthwhileormen ike

Archedemuso benefitmen ike

Crito nd thus

be benefitedn

return.

oyalty,

hen,

asts s

long

s the

parties

nvolved

rofit

rom

each

other.

rito's

profit

ies n

getting

id

fhis

enemies,

nd

he

repays

Archedemus

by

giving

him

food and

calling

him

his

philos

;

Archedemus

eciprocates y

honoring

rito nd

by

rendering

im he

avor

echarizeto

of

helping

is

philoi

n

the

same

way;

these

philoi reciprocate y seeing

Archedemus s their

hilos andby

respecting

im.

This

story

as

already

ttracted

he ttentionf

scholars,

ither ecauseof

the

unequal

basis of the

elationship

escribedn t

or becauseof the

kind f

strategy

hat

was

suggested y

Socrates nd used

by

Crito12.

t

is also one of

thetexts sed

by

Millett n

his article n the

avoidanceof

patronage

n

Athens.

Millett

egards

his

story

s

anticipating

a

common evice

of Roman

patronage:

reservingppearances

by

disguising

lients

s

amici',

yet

he

thinks hat his

s

a

rare

xample

f

personal

patronage',

nd

thereforefno

mportant

onsequence13.

ut s

can be

seen,

he

tory

contains ll the

components

f the

kindof

philia

which,

ccording

o

Aristotle,

s

based on the

useful,

does not

last,

and exists

between

unequal parties.

t

is not

surprisinghat hiskind fphiliaexisted etween wealthynd a respectedman ike

Crito nd

whatConnor alls an

impoverished

nd

relatively

bscure

olitician'

ike

Archedemus14.or s their

elationship product

f the

hange

n

Athenian

olitics

in

the ate fifth

entury,

hich nabled

poor

citizens o

ascend o

political

minence

by

virtue f

their

ratoricalnd forensic

bility15.

Both Millett nd

Harvey

mphasize

he

carcity

f

such relationsn

Athens.

Harvey

lso

argues

hat

rito's

trategy

as not

ypical

nd

that ince

Xenophon

ells

this

story

n

some

detail,

this

strategy

is

unusual'16.

However,

Crito's

reaction

indicates

hat he dea was

notnovel

to

him;

he

merely

xpressed

is

concern

hat

such

person

might

urn

gainst

im.

t

seems hat

rito ad

already xperienced

his

kind frelationshipnd eenhow t nded.He thereforeeared hatcceptingocrates'

suggestion

might

nvolvehim

n a

relationship

ased on a

mutual ut

not

asting

interest. ritowas not

the

only

Athenian

esiegedby

sykophants,

nd

Archedemus

was

not the

only

one to

provide

help

n

such

cases,

as

the

story

bout

Charmides

12

See

Connor,

op.

cit.

(n. 5),

p.

35-36;

Davies,

op.

cit.

(1981,

n.

1),

p.

117;

F.D.

Harvey,

The

Sykophant

nd

Sykophancy

Vexatious

Redefinition

,

in

P.

Cartledge,

P. Millett

& S. Todd

eds),

p.

cit.

n. 11),

p.

116;

R.

Osborne,

oc. cit.

(n. 11),

p.

96-98. See

also

Herman,

p.

cit.

n. 5),

p.

87,

who

nterprets

his

tory

s

an

example

f

how

man ould ct

on behalf

f nother an

withinhe

ity's

nstitutional

machinery';

onstan,

op.

cit.

n.

5),

p.

57,

who

sees this

tory

s an

example

f the

concepthat riendships basednot nly nsentimentsnd ntentionsut lso ondeeds;and Mitchell,

op.

cit.

(n. 1),

p.

42 andn.

6,

who

regards

he

story

s

referring

o

'patronage

elationship

f

some ort'.

13

Millett,

loc.

cit.

1989,

n.

1),

p.

33,

36.

14

Connor,

op.

cit.

n. 5), p.

35.

15

As

argued y

Davies,

op.

cit.

1981,

n.

1),

p.

117.

16

Harvey,

loc.

cit.

1990,

n.

12),

p.

116.



8/17

DID

PATRONAGEXIST N

CLASSICALATHENS?

71

shows.WhenCharmides asrich, e was always fraid fburglarsndsykophants,

and

thereforee acted s their ervant

eGeparceDev)

nd felt ike heir

lave;

but nce

he lost

his

fortune,

e felt ike a

tyrant

Xen.,

Symp.,

,

30-32)17.

It

seems, herefore,

hatCrito's

trategy

as notnew to

Xenophon,

nd that

this

tory

was not

xceptional,

ut

merely

ne in a series f

other tories

oncerning

Socrates'viewson

philia

and

reciprocity,

ll of which re

similarly

f some detail'

(Mem.,

I,

1-10)18.

n one of

these tories

Mem.,

I,

10)

Socrates xhorts iodorus

to

help

a

poor

man

by

thenameof

Hermgenes

nd

take

are of

him

s

he

does

his

slaves.

Hermgenes

s a

very

elf-conscious

an,

ays

Socrates,

nd will be ashamed

to receive

help

without

eciprocating.

herefore,

ocrates

uggests

hat iodorus se

Hermgenes, ho s muchmoreuseful han laves,

4

as a willing,well-disposednd

steadfastttendant

')7cr|pTr|),

apable

of

doing

whathe is

told,

nd also able to be

useful

nbidden,

y

thinking

learly

nd

giving

dvice.' Socrates eminds iodorus

f

what

good

landlords

ay:

it

is best to

buy

a

valuable

object

when ts

price

s

low;

'now

s the

best

ime',

ays

Socrates,

to

acquire ood

friends

cpmx;...

itigocgGcci)'.

Diodorus

ccepts

Socrates'

suggestion

nd at

a

cheap

priceacquires

philos

who

makes

very

ffortobenefitnd

please

him

y

word r

by

deed

f'

iycov

'

Tupaxxcov).

The

vocabulary

f

philia

is similar

n

both hese

tories,

lthough

he atters

muchmore latant

philia

which ere

means

giving

money

n returnor

ervices,

s

an

object

o be

bought, referably

t

a

low

price.

t can therefore

e concluded hat

Crito's

trategy

as not

unusual;

or

an the elations e createdwithArchedemus

e

termeda minor ocialphenomenon'19.tmight e argued hatXenophon resented

an

ideal

Socrates

who

preached

n

the deal

way

of

living.

However,

presenting

Socrates

s a

promoter

f theuseful

hilia

wouldhave failed o achieve

Xenophon'

object

f

defending

ocrates'

name,

nless his ind f

philia

was normative.

17

Similarly,

lutarch

(Nic.,

,

4)

tellshowNicias

gavemoney

o thosewho ould

harm

im,

o less than o those

whowere

worthy

f his benefits.

schomachus

racticed

the

rt

f

rhetorico fend ff

ykophants

Xen.,

Oec

, XI,

21-25).

The

speaker

n

Dem.,]

25, 41,

claims hat

Aristogeiton

sedto take

money

rom

eaceful

itizens

n returnor

withdrawing

aw suits

which e

broughtgainst

hem.

he same

harge

s

broughtgainst

people ikeTheokrines,yperides,hucydidesnd Demosthenesn [Dem.,] 8, 40; 65.

Harvey,

loc. cit.

1990,

n.

12),

p.

116,

regards

he

stories

bout Charmides

nd

Ischomachus

s

examples

f methods

f

dealing

with

ykophants

ther

han hat f Crito.

Yet,

herelationsf

exchange

nd

dependencepparent

n

all

these necdotes

ndicate

common

ractice.

or n

originalnterpretation

f theword

vKovrri

and

survey

f

its

usage

nd

nterpretations

n ancientndmodern

imes,

ee J.

Labarbe,

Physiologie

u

sycophante

inBAB 7

(1996),

p.

143-171.

ortheverb

herapeuein

see

Mitchell,

op.

cit.

n. 1),

p.

11,

n.

69,

who counts t withwords

which an indicate

friendly'ctivity

and

precede

/i///


9/17

72 R. ZELNICK-ABRAMOVrrZ

*

As

mentioned

bove,

cholars

make distinctionetween

ublic

nd

personal

patronage.

n

Millett's

opinion, ublic pay,

or the redistributionf income o the

poor,

was a

practical

ntidote o

personalpatronage'20.

n

thishe follows

M.I.

Finley,

who detectedn the

tory oncerning

ericles' ntroductionf the

urors'pay

(Arist.,

th.Pol

, 27,

3)

an alternative

orm

f

crisis

nsurance',

while

discounting

the

way

n which

Aristotleeduced he onflict etween he

patronage

f the

wealthy

and the

suppression

f it

by

democraticmeansto a

personal

and

political) ivalry

betweenPericles and

Cimon21.Millett

grees

with

Finley

hat he

ntroductionf

public pay

was a democratic ubstitute

or the loans

given

by

Pisistratus,

or

example, o thepeasants. o thisheaddsphilia which einterpretss existing nly

between

elatives,

eighbors

nd

friends and theeranoi22.

et,

as Millett imself

explains,

n Athenian itizen

needed

philoi

n

order o

benefit rom n

ranos and

philoi

were

not

necessarily

elatives,

eighbors

r

friends.

urthermore,

hat

ericles

did was not

very

ifferentrom hat

imon id:Cimon

pened

hishouse nd

fields o

his

demotai

or

to all the

citizens,

ccording

o

Theopompus,

15

F

89 J.

Athen.,

XII,

533a-c])23,

nd distributed

oney

o

poor

citizens

Plut.,

Cim

, 10; Per.,

9);

Periclesdistributed

oney

ut of

the

public reasury,

nd notout of

his own

purse.

Both

spired

o

political

minence

nd reached t

by

benefiting

he

poor.

Cimon

may

have

donethis n a

smaller cale and

by

private

means,

ut

his

aim

and

motives lso

lay nthepublic phere.

Crito's

problem

nd his solution

ikewise seem

to

belong

to the

private

sphere:

e

desires o avoidtrouble nd

succeeds

y

creating

hilia

with n

ndividual.

There

s, however,

public spect

o their

elations: ritouses

Archedemuso fend

off is

enemies

n

the aw courts

the mbodiment

fthedemos'

sovereignty.

ndeed,

he

repays

Archedemus

y

giving

him

food,

but he

also includeshim n

his social

circle,

very

mportant

edium or

poor

nd

ambitious

olitician.

rchedemusan

thus se his

new connectionso

advancehis

position

n

the

public

phere

nd move

up

the ocial

adder.He does

not

epay

rito

n

goods

or

money,

ut athern

services

which

elong

o the

public

phere24.

20

Millett,

loc. cit.

1989,

n.

1), p.

38.

21

Ibid.,

p.

38; Finley,

op.

cit.

n. 1),

p.

39-40,

47.

Nevertheless,

inley

learly

speaks

of

personal

atronage'

s

being

till

possible

n

the secondhalf

of the fifth

century

.C.

(p.

45-47).

. Schmitt

antel,

La

cit u

banquet.

istoire

es

repas

ublics

dans

es cits

recques

Rome, 992,

.

193-196,

hile

dmitting

hat

he ntroduction

f

the

public

ay

did not

bolish

rivate

cts

of

generosity,

enies

ny

orrelation

etween

the

onductf

Periclesnd hat

fCimon.

22

Millett,

loc.

cit.

1989,

n.

1), p.

38-41.

23

According

o

Theopompus,

imon

lso

Oeprceuev

very ay

ny

newho sked

for

his

help.

See 115

F

135 J.

Athen.,

XII,

532f

-

533a)

on

a

similar

tory

bout

Pisistratus.24 Cf.Davies,

op.

cit.

1981,

n.

1),

p.

97,whoclaims hat imon cted n a

very

similar

way

to theRoman

lientela

deploying

is

propertyy

showing

haristo the

whole

olis

ndto the

poor.

n

Osborne's view

loc.

cit.

n. 11],

p.

98),

Crito

pplied

o

Archedemushe

sortof

patronage

estowed

y

politicians

ike Cimon n

the

whole

community,

hus

istorting

oth

raditionalnd

new

methodso obtain

olitical

nfluence

forhis own

personal

nterests.ee

Finley,

op.

cit.

n.

1),

p.

40, 45-46,

who

claims hat



10/17

DID

PATRONAGE

XIST N

CLASSICAL

THENS? 73

This public dimension f philia is also demonstratedn fourth-century

orations,

hich

rovide

many xamples

f

using

hiloi

s witnesses r

prosecutors25.

Moreover,

n

most ases

these

hiloi

received

money

n

return

or heir ervices r

usedthe

money

o

arrange' mpaaKEueoGai)

witnesses

nd a favorable erdict26.

Philoi were lso used

n the

Assembly

nd theCouncil27.

lthough

he bundance

f

accusations

f

giving

nd

receiving

ribes

may

create he

mpression

f a

rhetorical

topos

or of an

argument

rbitrarily

sed

against

ivals,

t neverthelessndicates

prevailing

henomenon.

hese

philoi

werenot

necessarily

riends,

ut

people

hired

d

hoc to solve a

private

roblem

n a

public

nstitution.

he services

Archedemus

performed

or

Crito

were no

differentrom hose

that ther

hiloi performed

or

private itizens, trategoi

r

rhetores.

t

is

true

hat

lmost

nothing

s

known

bout

the tatus f these

hiloi

but he

following xamples

howthat ocrates'

uggestion

was

in line with common

ractice

nd

that

private

hilia

was often

sed

in the

public

phere.

1. Orations 8

and

29

of

Lysias

reveal

henature f the

relationship

etween

Ergocles

the

defendant

n no.

28)

andPhilocrates

the

defendant

n

no.

29).

Thesetwo

Athenians,

ccording

o the

speaker

n

orationno.

28,

were

philoi

and

KXaice

('flatterers')

f

Thrasybulus,

ithwhom

hey

went

n a

militaryxpedition

o Asia

Minor.

Their collaboration

with

him made them

rich

( 4).

Ergocles

valued

Philocrates

more han

nyone

lse and treated

im ike

a

very

lose friend.

e took

himfrom

mong

he

hoplites,

made him

his

purser

nd

finally ppointed

imas a

trierarch29. 3). The speaker n orationno. 29 says it is strange hatPhilocrates

should

olunteero

undertakehe

rierarchy,

ince

he had no

property.

herefore,

e

reasons,

Ergocles

must

have

arranged

orPhilocrates

o

gain profit

nd

to

guard

Ergocles'

money,

ecause

he had no

one whomhe

trusted ore

han im

4).

If we

are

to believe the

speaker,

rgocles

became

the

philos

of

Philocrates,

who was

inferiorn status.

heir

philia

was based

not

only

on

trust,

ut also

on

reciprocal

Cimon

xercised

personal atronage'

nd

that

poor

citizen

n

Athens

ould either

'become

he lient f

Cimon r

the lient f

the tate.'

25

E.g.,

Lys.,

15, 1-6,10;

26, 15;

[Dem.,]

9, 10,38;

50, 27-28; 9,

43;

Aesch.,2,

184;

see

Ober,

op.

cit.

n. 1),

p.

218-219,

58.

26 E.g.,Lys.,28, 9; 29,6-7, 12; 30,31; Dem., 21, 112-113, 39-140; 1, 16,20-

22.

According

o F.D.

Harvey,

Dona Ferentes:

ome

Aspects

f

Bribery

n

Greek

olitics

inP.A.Cartledge

& F.D.

Harvey

eds.),

Crux.

ssays

resented

o

G.E.M.

e

Ste.

Croix

Exeter, 1985,

p.

76-117,

the orators

may

have

deliberately

hosen words

like

7iapaGKD(xeG0(xi

o

put

henotion

f

bribery

nto he

urors'

minds. f.

Moss,

oc. cit.

(n. 1),

p.

149,

n.

21,

150,

n. 23. On

bribery

n

Athens,

ee also S.

Perlman,

On

Bri-

bing

Athenian mbassadors

in

GRBS

17

(1976),

p.

223-233.

27

See

Theophr.,

har., 9,

4-5,

n the

hiloponeros

ho

helps eople

n the ourts

and he

Assembly.

he

tory

old

y

Xen.,

Hell., , 7, 8,

that

heramenes'

en

o

7cep

v

Gepa^vri)

rranged

rcapeaKetxxoav)

or he

ppearance

f

mourning

elatives

n the

assembly

hat

was to decide

n the ate

fthe

enerals

ho

fought

t

Arginusai,

ay oint

to the amemethod;f.Mitchell,op. cit. n. 1),p.42-43.M.H.Hansen,TheAthenian

Democracy

n the

Age of

Demosthenes,xford,

991,

p.

284,

rightly

tresseshat he

mourners

id not

form

political arty,

utfails o

notice

he

political

mportance

f

'those

round'

heramenes,

ho

rranged

or

wide d

hoc

support

n the

ssembly.

ee

also

Konstan,

op.

cit.

n.

5),

p.

65-67.

For other

xamples,

ee R.K.

Sinclair,

Demo-

cracy

nd

Participation

n Athens

Cambridge,

988,

141-145;

Mitchell,

op.

cit.

n. 1),

p.

41-42.



11/17

74

R. ZELNICK-ABRAMOVrrZ

services.But whenErgocleswas putto death, ll sentimentsonnectedwith his

philia

disappeared:

hilocratesbtained

he

money

hat

rgocles

had

embezzled nd

used

it to

procure

witnesses o

testify

hathe was the

greatest nemy

f

Ergocles

( 7).

Since

Ergocles

ouldbe of no furtherse to

Philocrates,

heir

hilia

which ad

involved im n a

lawsuit,

was void.

2.

The defendantn

Lys.,

19

enumeratesis father'smeritsnd services

o

the

polis.

Besides

many iturgies

nd

generous

isphora-

onations,

is fatherlso

helped

his

philoi

he contributedo the

daughters

nd sisters f

needy

itizens,

ansomed

fellow

itizens,

nd

gave

others

money

or urial

56-59).

The reason

why

his father

did

all

this,

ays

the

defendant,

as becausehe

thought

hat

good

man

hould

help

hisphiloi even ifno one hears about t. Yet it seemsimprobable hat ll those

people

were rue riends f his

father;

f

he

really

elped

hem,

e

probably

ctednot

only

out of

altruism,

utalso with n

eye

to future

ain.

This s made clear

by

the

fact hat he

private

enefitsrementioned

long

with he

public

enefits,

vidently

n

order o

gain

the harisof the

demos,

hat

s

-

a favorable

erdict.

hus his

father's

philia

towards

rivate

itizens

s

madeknown ndused n a

public

ontext28.

3.

Apollodorus,

n

[Dem.],

59, 72,

claims hat

tephanus elpedTheogenes

n

his dokimasiawhen he

atter

as chosen

by

ot

for

he

position

f

archon-basileus.

When

Theogenes

ntered is

office,

tephanus ave

him

money,

ought

rom im

he

position

f an assistant o the

archon and married im to

Neaera's

daughter.

f

Apollodorus

s

telling

he

truth,tephanus elpedTheogeneswho

is

described s

poor)to obtain n honorable ositionn return or publicposition orhimself nd

social

recognition

orNeaera's

daughter.

lthough

here s no mention f

philia

in

this

ext,

t is clear that

heserelationswere

based

on

mutual nterestn the

public

sphere

nd onsisted f n

exchange

f

ervices etween

nequals.

4.

The

same

Apollodorus,

n another

ration

[Dem.],

53,

1-14),

tells the

judges

how

his

neighbor

nd

philos

Nicostratus eceived

many

benefits rom

im.

Nicostratus as also

useful o

him,

forwhen

Apollodorus

was

away

on

military

serviceor

business,

Nicostratus

managed

his

estate.When Nicostratus

as taken

captive

while

earching

or

hree

unaway

laves,

Apollodorus

made

every

ffortnd

spent arge

ums f

money

o free im.Yet

Nicostratusid not

repay

he

haris and

this nsultmovedApollodoruso seekrevengenthe aw court. hatNicostratus as

not

qual

to

Apollodorus

s revealed

y

Apollodorus'

se oftheverb

cpoaxxxeiv:

e

recounts hat

when he had to

go

to

the

Peloponnese

s a

trierarch,

e

wrote o

Nicostratusnd

ordered

im

7cpoaxa^a)

to

manage

his estate n his

absence

5).

Furthermore,

lthough

icostratus

ad andof his

own,

he must

avehad ess

money

than

Apollodorus

f

he asked

Apollodorus

or

help

nd f

twoof his three

laveshad

been

given

to him

by Apollodorus

6)29.

Among

he

three

rothers,

icostratus,

28

Cf.

Dem., 18,

268-269,

whorecounts is

private

ioi)

benefits

long

with is

benefitso the ublic rcprvXiv),nd rgueshatn hisopinionhe enefitedhould

always

ememberheir

enefits,

hile hebenefactorhould

orget

hem

mmediately

(which

e of

course oes

not).

29

Cf.

Xen.,

Oec

Ill, 5,

on the conomic

ap

between

andowners,

nd

ymp

4, 35,

on the

different

conomicotof

brothersho nheritedn

equal

share.

Millett,

op.

cit.

(1991,

n.

1),

p.

54,

claims

hat oth

Apollodorus

nd

Nicostratus

elonged

o

the

upper

end f

ociety',

nd hat he act

hat hree

laves an

way

rom

icostratuss

indicative

f



12/17

DID

PATRONAGE

XIST N CLASSICALATHENS? 75

Deinon andArethusius,he ast was considered obe the wealthiest 28)30, nd

Deinonadmitted lack of means

6).

Although pollodorus

wanted he

udges

to

believethat he hree rothers ere

rich,

t

seemsthat

hey

id not hare he

family

propertyqually,

hat

Nicostratus'

meanswere ess than

Arethusius',

nd

definitely

less than

Apollodorus'.

herefore,

he

philia

that xisted etween

Apollodorus

nd

Nicostratusonsisted f relations f

exchange

etween wo itizens

f

unequal

tatus

and tsbitterndwas used as an ssue

concerning

he

public.

5.

Andcides

1, 147)

reminds he

udges

of

how

his

family

as

always

been

ko

v

ox

iri

('affable', courteous')

to

needy

citizens.This reminders

one of his

arguments

or

n

acquittal

n

a

public

rial.

hus,

ike n the ase of

Lys.,

19

see

the

second xample), rivate enefitsreshown s belongingo the ublic oncern.

6.

A

slightly

ifferent

xample

of

philia

is that f Phocion

who,

when till

young,

ssociated

with

Chabrias

and followed

him

(Plut.,

Phoc

,

6,

1

-

7,

2).

Chabrias

oved Phocion and

helped

him to advance to

leadership.

He

gave

him

military

ositions

ndmade

him

espected y

all the

Greeks.

n

return,

hocion erved

Chabrias

nd

respected

im

BepocTcrcov

iocx,eiai

xijicov;

,

2).

After

habrias'

deathPhocion ookcare

of

Chabrias'

relatives,

specially

f his son

Ctesippus,

nd

covered

p

the

ater' shamefuleeds.

Once,

when

Ctesippus

ad

troubledhocion

oo

much,

e cried:

Chabrias,

repay our

hilia

with

reat

haris

when bearwith

our

son '

(7, 2).

The differenceetween

his ndthe

previous

toriess that

rue

riendship

seems

to have existedbetweenChabrias

nd Phocion.

Nonetheless,

his

hilia

had

also been createdbetween wounequal parties nd consisted f an exchangeof

services.

Moreover,

hocion

elt

bliged

o extend

his

hilia

to his

philos'

relatives

after habrias'

eath. lutarch escribes

lsewherePraec Ger.

Reip

,

11

[Mor.

805e-

f])

Phocion'

relation o Chabrias

s an

ivy twining

tself round

strong

ree nd

climbing

pwards

with ts

support.

e includes hocion

mong

ther amous

men,

such s

Aristeides,

ho chose the afe

and

eisurely ay

to enter

olitics:

while till

young

nd

unknown

hey

ttached

hemselveso

older ndfamous

men,

ncreasedheir

strengthhrough

hem,

nd thus

ooted hemselves

irmly

n

the tate.

All these

xamples

ontain

lements f the

useful

hilia

personal

elations

involving

n

exchange

f services

etween

wo ndividuals f

differenttatus.

ndeed,

thefirst,ourthnd sixth ases imply hat lose relationsrecededmutual rofit,et

this

profit elped

o

maintain he

philia.

Furthermore,

hese

personal

elations

ad

their

mplications

n

the

public

phere

they

were he ause

of awsuits

r wereused

as

arguments

or

cquittal,

r were

means or

dvancing public

areer

as

in the ases

of

Ergocles-Philocrates

nd

Chabrias-Phocion).

n other

words,

he

private

spect

f

these elations

as

brought p

and

described s

belonging

o the

public

domain.

his

indicates hat the

line

separating

he

private

nd

the

public

spheres

of

life in

democratic thens

was

very

ine

nd that

rivate

nterests ere

often

resented

s

public31.

Both Pericles

and

Crito,

for

example,

used

methods

nd

expressions

hisrelative ealth. utApollodorustates pecificallyhat e himselfavetwoof theslaves o Nicostratus

30

On

Arethusiusee

also J.K.

Davies,

Athenian

ropertied

amilies

600-300

.C.,

Oxford, 971,

p.

481,

no.

12413,

n. 1.

31

According

o

Millett,

op.

cit.

1991,

n.

1),

p.

86,

this

fact s revealed

n

the

perception

hat

erforming

iturgies

ould

be

profitable,

n thenarrow

inancialense.

t

must e

noted,

hough,

hat

iturgies

ere ftenmentioned

y

itigants

n order

o

gain



13/17


belongingointerpersonalelationsn order oacquirepolitical trengthr to avoid

public

nvolvement.thenian

emagogues'

methods f

flattering

he

demos,

eclaring

their

hilia

towards

t,

nd

promising

conomic

dvantages

n order o

gainpolitical

influence,

ere

no differentrom hilocrates' se of

Ergocles'

philia

towards im r

from heuse of

philoi

to fend ff

rosecutors

r

to

gain

an

acquittal.

ence,

philia

was a

built-in

omponent

f

Athenian

emocracy,

s much s were

qual rights

nd

publicpay.

If

we are to believeAristotle

Ath.

ol.,

27,

3)

that he

motive or

ntroducing

the

urors'

pay

was

Pericles'

political

rivalry

with

Cimon,

then t was

neither a

practical

ntidote o

personal

patronage'

nor

4

a democratic ubstitute' s

Millett

claims32. he aboveexamples howclearly hatneedy itizens ould also improve

their ife

nd status

y

benefiting

ealthy

nd influential

itizens

nd

thus

reating

philia-

elationswith

hem.This method oexisted

with

democratic

deology

nd

practice.

conomic

nequality

as notovercome

y

ntroducingublicpay,

nor

by

using

ranoi.Poor and ambitious itizens till

needed

personal elp

nd

nfluence33,

which

hey

were

willing

o

repay

s

long

s the

payment

as considereds

charis ue

to a

philos

They

could

pay

not

only

n

money

nd

personal

ervices,

ut

also

by

helping

heir

hiloi

n

the

public phere.

his

penetration

f

philia'

setof rules nd

vocabulary

nto

olitics

nd

public

ifewas not

new;

thad

probably

lso

characterized

Athens n

former

enturies,

o

udge

from

.g.

Herodotus' nd

Aristotle's se of ts

vocabulary

n

dealing

with

sagoras

nd Cleisthenes

Hdt.,

V, 70;

Arist.,

th

Pol.,

20,3). Democracy eitherliminated or upersededtbycreating newvocabulary

and

alternative

ays,

but rather

arnessed t to its

purposes

nd

ideology.

Thus,

a

(pi,7toXi

'a

loverof the

polis'),

or

a

cpiSino

'a

loverof the

demos'),

was a

citizen

who acted n the nterestsf the

demos34,

nd the

demos'

recognition

f

a

citizen's

olitical

minencewas seen as charis

paid

n returnor

good

civilbehavior

and for ervices

enderedo the

demos;

gain,

his

haris

was to

be

repaid y

further

serving

he

demos35.

dmittedly,

hilia

towards

hedemos was to be

placed

above

private

?/z///z-relations36,

nd

philotimia

as to

be

put

n

the ervice f the

demos

1

charis romhe

udgese.g.,

Lys.,

18,21; 21, 1-14;

Dem.,]

5,

76; Dem., 2,

23),

andnot

only erformedn orderogainprofitnd nfluencensociety.ee alsoDavies,op. cit.

(1971,

n.

30),

p.

XVII-XVIII; ober,

op.

cit.

n. 1),

p.

228;

and

cf.

Gallant,

op.

cit.

(1991,

n.

1),

p.

149;

R.

Seaford,

Reciprocity

nd Ritual:

Homer nd

Tragedy

n the

Developing ity

State,

xford, 994,

p.

194-198;

nd von

Reden,

p.

cit.

n.

1),

p.

84.

32

Millett,

loc. cit.

1989,

n.

1), p.

38.

33

Ibid. Cf.

Finley,

op.

cit.

n. 1),

p.

40. See

Moss,

oc. cit.

n. 1),

p.

150,

who

rightly

otes hat

nequality,

r

asymmetry,

n

such elationsould ake

arious ormsnd

was not

necessarily

elatedo

fortunes.

34

See

Ar.,

Eq.,

787; Nub.,1187;

Vesp.,

87-888;

ys.,

47; Plut., 00;

Thuc., I,

60,

5; VI, 92,

2-4;Eur.,

Suppl.,

06-508;

hoen

,

406-407. n the

anguage

f

philia

n

Athenian

olitics,

ee

Connor,

op.

cit.

n. 5),

p.

99-108.

35

Ar.,Eq., esp. 1152-1155, 205; soc., 8, 121;15, 132-134; em., 18, 112; 20,

154;

[Lys.1,

0,

30-35.

36

E.g., Soph.,Ant., 82-191;

f.

Connor,

od.

cit.

n. 5), p.

105-106.

37

Eur.,

Phoen., 531-567;

Thuc., II, 65, 7; VIII,

89, 3; Ar.,

Thesm

,

383-384;

Aesch., 3, 255;

Lys., 16,

18-21; em.,19,

223. Cf.D.

Whitehead,

Competitiveutlay

and

Community

rofit OiXoxi^ia

n

Democratic

thens,

n

CM,

34

(1983),

p.

55-74;

Ober,

op.

cit.

n. 1),

p.

243,

333;

von

Reden,

op.

cit.

n. 1),

p.

8,

81-98.



14/17

DID

PATRONAGEXIST

N

CLASSICALATHENS?

77

But whenprivate elations ould be usedtodemonstrateither ne's philia to the

demosor a rival's

iiGo8r||iia

'loathing

f the

demos'),

or

to

gain

chartsfrom he

demos,

hen ne's behavior

as

n

ine

with

emocratic

deology.

Thus,

the

anguage

of

philia

was used in

politics,

with

ll theovertones f

interpersonal

elations. he ambivalent

ttitude

o

thisnorm s

naturally

eflected

n

the

writings

of

moralists.

Plutarch relates two

contradictory

tories

about

Themistocles'ndKleon's attitudeo

philia.

WhenKleon

decided o

enter

olitics,

e

renouncedll formerelations ith is

philoi

becausehe didnotwant o be influenced

in his choice of

politicalpath;

onversely,

hemistocles laimed hat herewas no

advantage

n office f t could notbe used to

help

one's

philoi

Praec

Ger.

Reip

,

13

[Mor., 806f;807a-b]). Yet Plutarch ensuresKleon for ubstitutinglatterersor

philoi

and

making

hemhis hetairoi

rcpoaexaipinevo;

ibid.,

807a),

while

concerning

hemistocles

e cites the answer

given

by

Themistocles

o the

poet

Simonides,

ho sked

for is

help

n

obtaining

n office:Neither ould

he

be

a

good

poet

who

sings

out of

tune,

orwouldone be

a

good

archon

who renders avors

n

contradiction

o the aw'

(mp

xv

v^iov

xocpi|nevo;

07b;

cf.

Them.,

).

These

stories

resumably

eflect

ifferentraditionsboutthese

politicians,

ut

they

lso

reflecthe

use of

/?/ii7/a-vocabulary

n

politics

ndthe

mbivalentttitudeo thisnorm

of

behavior.

hemistocles

nd Kleon

very

probably

eeded

philoi

n their

olitical

career,

nd when

n

power

were ble to

help

and render avors o

them;

yet,

or he

sake

of

their

ublic mage

they

had to behave as

though

heir

hilia

was directed

towardshewhole emos.

Thus,

by reading

he sources

arefully,

e can infer hat ich nd

powerful

citizens,

usceptible

o attacks

y

sykophants

nd

political

rivals,

reated

d hoc

p//'a-relations

n

order o obtain

elp

nd

protection

n returnor ervices.

heirnew

philoi

were

usually

nferiorn social

and

economic

tatus nd therefore

illingly

entered elations

f

philia

nd

dependence. eing

alled

philoi

fthe

uperior

itizens

satisfied

heir

hilotimia

nd

helped

hem o move

up

the

ocial ladder.

They

were

called

philoi

ven when hired'for

strict

urpose,

uch

s

acquitting

heir

hilos

or

convicting

is rival

n

the

aw courts.Crito's

anxiety

nd Philocrates'

behavior

towards is

former

hilos

show

that uch

philia may

nd when

hemutual nterest

no longer xists, rwhen he nterestsfone of thepartiesnvolved ie elsewhere.

Philia of that

indwas created

o

pave

the

way

to

public

ctivity,

r to avoid

t.The

problems

onfronted

y

Crito,

Ergocles,

Philocrates nd

others

might

ave been

private,

utthecourtroom

as

thearenaof the

public,

f

thedemos

exercising

ts

sovereignty.

s the

ourth-century

rators

how,

he

people's

verdict as considered

charis,

and

the

udges

an

object

of

courting

nd

flattery.

oth a

public

figure

ike

Ergocles

nd

private

itizen ikeCrito

eeded he haris f

the emos

ndused

philia

to

gain

it. Poor citizens

n

democratic

Athens

could

rely

on

public

funds

nd

occasional

orn

distributions,

ut

n

order

o

mprove

heir

ocial status

nd

political

position

hey

reated

?/n//-relations

ithmore

istinguished

nd

nfluentialitizens.

In

other

words,

hey

ecame

dependent

n the

generosity

nd

friendship'

f others

n

returnor ervicesnthepublic phere. hese services lsomadephiliaessential or

influential

oliticians.

he

story

boutPhocion

s differentecause

the

philia

lasted

even

after habrias'

death nd had

nothing

o do

with he aw court.

et this

hilia

too had its

implications

n the

public

sphere

nd was

seen as

consisting

f

an

obligation

o

repay

haris.



15/17

78

R.

ZELNICK-ABRAMOVrrZ

*

In the

ight

of the above we can

now

return

o

the

questionposed

at the

beginning:

as there

atronage

n

Athens? hiscan be best nswered

y

considering

in what

ways

Greek

hilia

was differentrom r similar o Roman

atronage.

As we have

seen,

the

vocabulary

f

philia

was

applied

to a

wide

scale

of

interpersonal

elations,

ncluding

n contexts

ther

han

amilial r

friendly

elations.

Moreover,

here s no evidence

f

terminology

r rules

pecificallyenoting

elations

between wo

unequalparties

who

exchange

ervices

nd

are

neither elated o each

other orfriendsn the rue ense of theword.

Unlike

heRoman

patronicium

the

Greeks id notdefine

egally

he

bligations

xpected

f the

parties

nvolved ithern

theprivate r in thepublic phere. heyhadno specialwords o denote ither he

more

powerful

r

wealthy

arty

o theserelations r the nferior

arty. ertainly,

therewere

words hat

onveyed

he

meaning

f relations

etween

nequals

uchas

KXcL^

'flatterer')

nd

TcpoaTOxri

'one

who tands n

front';

a

protector')38.

kolax

couldbe

presented

s a

philos

Arist.,

th.

Nic.,

1159a

14-15),

nd a

philos

couldbe

regarded

s a

kolax

as

Archedemus as

in

the

yes

of his

enemies,

nd as

Ergocles

and

Philocrateswere

accused of

beingby

the

speaker

n

Lys.,

28,

4).

A

prostates

could be a

political

eader,

r

a

citizenwho

represented

metic.But

n

Xenophon

(

Oec

, II,

5-9),

this

word,

ndthe

orresponding

erb

rcpooTCCTeeiv),

eem

o

signify

the

protection

nd

help

rendered

y wealthy

nd

nfluentialitizen o a fellow

itizen

inneed. n thispassage,Socrates numeratesheduties xpected fCritobuluss a

wealthy

itizen.

hese consist f

providing

acrifices,

ntertaining

oreigners,

iving

dinnersnd

benefiting

itizensn order

o

retain

ollowers,

ndof

duties xacted

y

the

polis

-

liturgies

f variouskinds nd

prostasia

5-6).

This

prostasia

s

apparently

associatedwith

pending

money

n

the

public

nd

considered

s an

obligation

o the

demos:

f

Critobulus

ails o do what s

expected

f

him,

he will be

punished y

the

Athenians.ocrates

xplains

hat o be richmeans

pending

reat

ums f

money

nd

helping

hiloi

and therefore

ritobulus

may

find

himself

n

need

8).

Critobulus

then sks

Socrates o be his

prostates prostateuein

and

help

him

void a

pitiable

condition

9).

Although

ritobulus ses this

verb

metaphorically,

t s clear that

rostatesmeansherebeing n a superior osition ndhelping he nferior39.et besidesthis

story,

o

Athenian

itizenwas ever

described

n

the ources s

having prostates

parties

o this

kindof

relationship

ere

called

philoi.

To

explain

hisfactwe

may

return

o

Aristotle's iscussion f

philia

and note

that

n

his view

even

relations

between

arents

nd

childrenrerelations

etween

nequals,

nvolving

n

obligation

to

reciprocate

Eth.

Nic.,

1161a

15-21;

1162a

4-9).

Thus

philia

was,

on the ne

hand,

the

natural erm or

nterpersonal

elations,

egardless

f

the

motive.On theother

hand,

eceiving

enefitsrom more

nfluentialnd

wealthy

itizen

nd

being

bliged

to return

haris could be

regarded y

the

community

s

dependence,

s

something

similar

to

slavery,

or as

kolakeia.

Aristotle

ays

as

much when

he defines

megalopsychianddeclares hat o ive under nothers slavish rcpXXovf|v...

odikv),

unlesshe be a

philos

and

therefore

latterersre

hirelings

0t|tiko;

Eth.

38

See the

discussionn

Millett,

loc. cit.

1989,

n.

1),

p.

33-34,

who

detects

n

these

words

probable isguise

or

ersonal atronage

n

Athens.

39

Ibid.,

p.

35-36.

Cf.

THEOPHR.,

har., 9,

5.



16/17

DID

PATRONAGEXIST

N

CLASSICAL THENS? 79

Nic.,1124b31 - 1125a l)40.Thevocabularyfphilia conveyed he xactnature f

interpersonal

elations. ide

by

side with he

deology

of

philia

however,

here

existed he

deology

of eleutheria of

being

self-sufficientnd

not

dependent

n

others41.

ependence

ontradictedhenotion f

equality

n

democracy,

hile

hilia-

relations ad

the

ppearances

f

equality42.

hat s

why

kolakeiawas seen

as

slavery,

and

private

rostasia

as

relating

nly

to metics.No Athenian itizen

would have

defined imself

willingly

s

a

kola)

,

or admit o

having

prostates.

Thus,

creating

relations

f

philia

with nfluentialnd famous

itizens,

nd

paying

hem

espect

nd

charis ould

be

considered

s

acceptable

ehavior nd

prudent

olicy

which

lutarch

attributeso

Phocion),

r as

working

or

wages

for

uperior

itizens

nd

flattering

them thereproach eveled at Archedemus, r

the

description

f

Ergocles

and

Philocrates

y

the

speaker

n

Lys.,

28,

4).

Philia was sometimes

euphemism

or

relations

f

dependence,

rising

rom he

unequal

nature

f the

relationship.

his

s

also true

f the

Romans,

who used the

anguage

f

amicitia

friendship,

s

a

polite

disguise

or

patron-client

elations nd used their lients o

obtain

magistracies

nd

political ower43.

As we have

seen,

patronage

s defined s

personal

relations etween wo

unequalparties

nvolving

n

exchange

f services ver time.

Hence,

Greek

philia

corresponds

o

this definition

n

threeof its

components

personal

relations,

inequality,

nd the

exchange

f

services.As for

duration,

uch

philia

was seen

as

temporary,

r at least as

something

etermined

y

theduration f mutual

nterests.

Admittedly,hiliarequiredoyalty,s demonstratedyPhocion'sbehavior owards

his

philos

relatives,

r

Apollodorus'

omplaint

bout

his

philos

lack of charis.

Loyalty,

owever,

was not

something

hat ould be

depended

pon

n the case of

philia

motivated

y

practical

needs,

as Crito

was well aware and as

Athenian

politicians

ho

fell utof thedemos' favor

earnt o their ost.

In

conclusion,

nterpersonal

elations etween

nequalparties,

imilar

o the

Roman

system

f

patron-client

elations

nd to the modern

ociological

model of

patronage,

ere central

eature f Athenian

ociety

n theclassical

period.

These

relations iffered

rom heRoman

ystem

n three

spects:

heGreeks

id not

have a

distinctive

ocabulary

o describe

hese

relations;

hey

id

notestablish

y

aw the

obligationsxpected romheparties o these elations;nd these elations ereof a

shifting

ature.

therwise,

hese

elations,

efined

y

the

wide-ranged

eanings

f

philia

had all the characteristics

f

patronage.

ven in democratic

thens,

hese

40

Cf.

Eur.,

Suppl.,

871-877;

Xen.,Mem., I, 8, 4; Arist.,

Rhet.,

367 32

(about

Sparta);

ol.,

1337b19-21.

41

Cf.

Millett,

loc. cit.

1989,

n.

1),

p.

28-33;

von

Reden,

op.

cit.

n. 1),

p.

89-

97.

42

Cf.Arist.,Eth.Nic.,1158b28. See also C. Moss,galitdmocratiquet

ingalits

ociales. e dbat Athnesu IVme icleinMtis

2,

1

(1987),

p.

165-176;

Gallant,

op.

cit.

(1991,

n.

1),

p.

145-153,

n the

social

image

of

equality,

which

conceals

nequality

n

practice.

43

See

M.

Gelzer,

The Roman

Nobility.

ranslated

romGerman

y

R.

Seager,

Oxford,

969

Leipzig,

912],

.

54-69;

R.P.S

ller,

Personal

atronage

nder

he

arly

Empire

Cambridge,

982,

p.

8-39.



17/17


relationsoexistedwith hedemocraticdeologyndwereharnessedo tspurposes44.

Athenian itizens sed the

vocabulary

nd

therules f

philia

both

n

the

private

nd

the

public

pheres.

n

other

words,

heir

elations

ranscended,

hen

necessary,

he

fine ine that

istinguished

he ndividual s a

private

man from he ndividual

s a

citizen45.

hus,

f we

define social institution

s a

norm f behavior

whose rules

and

vocabulary

re

accepted y

and known o

every

member f the

ommunity,

nd

which ffectshe ife f the

members

f the

ommunity,

hen

hilia

in

all its

spects

and

expressions,

an ndeed e seen s

a

Greek ocial nstitution.

University

f

Tel-Aviv

DepartmentfClassicsRamat-Aviv9978

Isral

Rachel

ELNICK-ABRAMOVTTZ

44

Cf. Moss, loc. cit. (n. 1), p. 147-150,who detectsprivaterelations f

patronage

ndclientelan the

functioning

f Athenian

emocracy

nthefourth

entury

B.C.,

by

analyzing

herelationsetween

oliticians.

4 )

See

Hansen,

op.

cit.

(n.

27),

p.

79-80,

who

notes that the

Athenians

distinguished

etween he ndividual

s a

private erson

nd

the ndividuals a

citizen

rather

han etweenhe ndividual

ndthe tate*.

ikewise,

rito ried o remain

private

individual,

ut he

ykophants

ompelled

im

o act s an

ndividual

itizen,

polites.

zelnick-abrampvitz, did patronage exist in classical athens

Documents