Zelnick-Abrampvitz, Did Patronage Exist in Classical Athens
-
Upload
sergioungs -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
Transcript of 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 -
8/11/2019 Zelnick-Abrampvitz, Did Patronage Exist in Classical Athens
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Zelnick-Abrampvitz, Did Patronage Exist in Classical Athens
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Zelnick-Abrampvitz, Did Patronage Exist in Classical Athens
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
%
-
8/11/2019 Zelnick-Abrampvitz, Did Patronage Exist in Classical Athens
5/17
-
8/11/2019 Zelnick-Abrampvitz, Did Patronage Exist in Classical Athens
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Zelnick-Abrampvitz, Did Patronage Exist in Classical Athens
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Zelnick-Abrampvitz, Did Patronage Exist in Classical Athens
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///
-
8/11/2019 Zelnick-Abrampvitz, Did Patronage Exist in Classical Athens
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Zelnick-Abrampvitz, Did Patronage Exist in Classical Athens
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Zelnick-Abrampvitz, Did Patronage Exist in Classical Athens
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Zelnick-Abrampvitz, Did Patronage Exist in Classical Athens
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Zelnick-Abrampvitz, Did Patronage Exist in Classical Athens
13/17
76 R. ZELNICK-ABRAMOVrrZ
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Zelnick-Abrampvitz, Did Patronage Exist in Classical Athens
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Zelnick-Abrampvitz, Did Patronage Exist in Classical Athens
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Zelnick-Abrampvitz, Did Patronage Exist in Classical Athens
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Zelnick-Abrampvitz, Did Patronage Exist in Classical Athens
17/17
80 R. ZELNICK-ABRAMOVrrZ
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.