LAntiquit Classique

Did Patronage Exist in Classical Athens?

Author(s): Rachel Zelnick-Abramovitz
Source: LAntiquit Classique, T. 69 (2000), pp. 65-80
Published by: LAntiquit Classique
Stable 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 of
content 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 support@jstor.org.
.
LAntiquit Classique is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to LAntiquit
Classique.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 181.47.45.65 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:17:55 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Did
Patronage
Exist in Classical Athens?*
The
question
whether the
patron-client
relations such as existed in ancient
Rome,
or
patronage
in its modern
sociological definition,
was also a feature of
classical Athenian
society
has received much attention in recent studies. This indeed is
an
important question
which can lead to a better
understanding
of the
functioning
of
Athenian
society
and enable its
comparison
with other ancient and modern
pre-
capitalistic
and
pre-bureaucratic
societies. Yet the answers
given by
scholars tend to be
equivocal
and sometimes even
self-contradictory.
On the one
hand,
it is claimed that
patron-client
relations did not exist in
Athens,
or that it existed
only
in the archaic or
Hellenistic
periods.
On the other
hand,
an
attempt
has been made to differentiate
between
'personal patronage',
the existence of which is
practically
denied,
and
'public
patronage',
which is
supposed
to have characterized the
working
of Athenian
politics
in the classical
period.
While the terms
patron
and
patronage
are used in these studies
to claim or to
deny
that it existed in the one form or the other in Greek
society,
their
relevance or
meaning
in the
specific
Greek context has not been
explained1.
The use of the Roman term
patron
in
dealing
with Greek
society
is
particularly
evident in a 1989 collection of articles dedicated to the theme of
patronage
in the
ancient world. In the
preface
to this collection the
editor,
A.
Wallace-Hadrill,
refers to
the
acceptance
of
sociological
definitions of
patronage by
historians and to the new
questions
it involves. He concedes that the Roman model is too narrow to account for
similar
phenomena
in other ancient societies.
Moreover,
the Roman
vocabulary
associated with
patronage
relations was itself nuanced.
Therefore,
the
accepted
definition of
patronage
in this collection is based on the
sociological
model:
patronage
I am most
grateful
to Profs. S. Perlman and Z.
Rubin,
who read an earlier version of
this
paper,
for their comments. Needless to
say
that
any
flaws are
my responsibility.
1
Nor,
for this
purpose,
has it been
explained
what is meant
by using
these Roman
terms: the
patronicium
as reflected
by
the Twelve
Tablets,
or the norms of the late
republic?
See for
example
P.
Millett, Patronage
and Its Avoidance in Classical Athens
,
in
A. Wallace-Hadrill
(ed.), Patronage
in Ancient
Society , London, 1989,
p.
15-47;
S.C.
HUMPHREYS,
Public and Private Interests in Classical Athens
,
in
CJ,
73
(1977/8), p.
102;
J.K.
Davies,
Wealth and the Power
of
Wealth in Classical Athens
,
New
York, 1981,
p.
97;
M.I.
Finley,
Politics in the Ancient World
,
Cambridge, 1983, p.
46-47;
P.J.
Rhodes,
Political
Activity
in Classical Athens
,
in J
HS,
106
(1986), p. 134-142;
P.
Millett,
Lending
and
Borrowing
in Ancient Athens
,
Cambridge,
1991,
p.
48-51, 78,
284 n.
16,
292 n.
24;
T.W.
Gallant,
Risk and Survival in Ancient Greece
, Cambridge,
1991,
p. 146, 151, 159-166;
S. von
Reden, Exchange
in Ancient Greece
, London, 1995, p.
9,
110, 128, 179, 199;
L.J.
MITCHELL,
Greeks
Bearing Gifts.
The Public Use
of
Private
Relationships
in the Greek
World,
435-323 BC
,
Cambridge,
1997,
p.
1,
42. J.
Ober,
Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens
, Princeton, 1989,
p.
58, 67, 228-230,
offers a more
cautious discussion. C.
Moss,
Les relations de clientle dans le
fonctionnement
de la
dmocratie athnienne
,
'm
Mtis, 9-10,
1994-95
[1998],
came to
my
attention
only
after
this article has been
accepted
for
publication
and I therefore can refer to it
only
in the
footnotes. Moss too uses the Roman
terms,
but
generally
her ideas
complement my
own.
This content downloaded from 181.47.45.65 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:17:55 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
66 R. ZELNICK-ABRAMOVITZ
is a
'personal relationship
which involves
exchanges
of services over time between
two
parties
of different status'2. This definition takes into consideration the 'lack of
corresponding vocabulary'
in the Greek world3.
Altogether,
it is
agreed
that the
'strategic
function of such relations... was
successfully
reduced to a minimum' in
classical
Athens,
that
patronage
was not treated as an issue
by
Greek
historians,
and
that this is 'indicative of a
sharp
contrast between Greek and Roman societies'4. These
conclusions are drawn from P. Millett's article on classical
Athens,
which is the
only
one of the eleven articles in this book to deal with Greek
society.
This
proportion
is
significant,
and it
appears
to arise from the
general
consensus that
patron-client
relations,
if
they
existed at all in Greek
society,
did so in a
very
limited and
insignificant
manner.
Thus,
scholars' adherence to either the Roman model or the models set
by
modern
sociologists
tends to lead them to an
impasse.
The
approach
seems to be that
if Greek sources
yield
no evidence of technical terms identical to Roman
patron
and
client
,
of rules of behavior
clearly expressed by
these
terms,
or of relations which can
be
strictly interpreted according
to
patronage
models,
then
obviously patronage
did not
exist in Greek
society,
or it existed
only
in
pre-
and
post-classical
times.
Nonetheless,
the distinctive Greek
vocabulary
concerned with
interpersonal
relations which has no
simple
translation into other
languages
indeed
suggests
that
something
that can be
spoken
of in terms of
patronage
did exist in ancient Greek
society,
even if the
function and
expressions
of these relations did not
necessarily
conform to the Roman
or the
sociological
models.
Therefore,
it
may
be useful to examine the Greek terms used to characterize
interpersonal
relations within both the
private
and the
public spheres
of ancient Greek
society,
in order to ascertain the extent to which a Roman or a
sociological
model of
patronage
can be
applied
to ancient Greek
society.
*
It is
generally agreed
that
interpersonal
relations in Greek
society
consisted of
reciprocity
and
obligation,
and that the
key
word in such relations was
cpiicx
-
a word
usually
translated
inadequately
but
inevitably
as
'friendship'5.
The
concept
of
philia,
2
A. Wallace-Hadrill
(ed.), op.
cit.
(n. 1), p.
1-4.
Although
I have read studies of
patronage
in modern societies and found them useful in some
respects,
I do not intend to
use them here. A most
interesting
and
illuminating study
on a modern Greek
community
is
J.K.
Campbell,
Honour
, Family
and
Patronage.
A
study of
Institutions and Moral Values in
a Greek Mountain
Community , Oxford,
1964. See also S.N. Eisenstadt & L.
Roniger,
Patron-Client Relations as a Model
of Structuring
Social
Exchange ,
in
Comparative
Studies
in
Society
and
History ,
22
(1980), p.
42-77.
3
Wallace-Hadrill, op.
cit.
(n. 1), p.
4. Cf.
Moss,
loc. cit.
(n. 1), p.
147 and
n. 6.
4
Wallace-Hadrill, op.
cit.
(n. 1), p.
8.
5
The
following
is
only
a selected list: A.W.H.
Adkins,
Merit and
Responsibility:
A
Study
in Greek Values
, Oxford, 1960; Id.,
Friendship
and
Self-Sufficiency
in Homer
and Aristotle
,
in
C,
13
(1963), p. 30-45;
W.R.
Connor,
The New Politicians
of Fifth-
Century
Athens
, Princeton, N.J., 1971;
P.
Veyne,
Le
pain
et le
cirque
:
sociologie
historique
d'un
pluralisme politique
, Paris, 1976;
N.R.E.
Fisher,
Social Values in Classical
Athens
, London, 1976;
Th. W.
Gallant, Agricultural Systems,
Land Tenure and the
Reforms of Solon,
in
ABSA,
11
(1982), p.
111-124;
J.
Taillardat,
&iXir), Tloxiq
et
This content downloaded from 181.47.45.65 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:17:55 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DID PATRONAGE EXIST IN CLASSICAL ATHENS? 67
which
originally depicted
relations within a
family
or between
friends,
was
eventually
attributed to
interpersonal
relations in a much broader sense6. Its
vocabulary
contained
not
only
words like
philia
and
philos ,
but also
%<xpi ('favor'
and
'gratitude')
and
ccSco ('consciousness
of the
obligations expected
of
one').
These terms can be found
in the context of relations between rulers and
subjects,
between fellow
citizens,
between democratic leaders and the
demos,
between
partners
to commercial
transactions,
etc.
The locus classicus for the definition of
philia-
relations is Aristotle's Ethica
Nicomachea. Aristotle's contribution to the
concept
of
philia
is in
differentiating
between three kinds of
philia according
to what motivates and maintains the
relationship: 1) philia
based on
aperri,
which is the true kind of
philia ; 2) philia
based
on what is
pleasant,
t
T]8t>;
and
3) philia
based on what is
useful,
t
a^upopov (
Eth .
Nic.,
1155b
19-27;
1156a 6
-
1156b
5). Yet,
all three share
important
characteristics:
the
willingness
to benefit
(eepyeTev)
the other
(1155a 7-9)
is virtuous
(kgc,v;
1162b
36),
and
benefiting
is
repaid by respect (ti|it|;
1163b
4).
This is an essential
component
of
philia
,
and therefore one must
reciprocate (rcooTeov)
in
every
kind of
philia , according
to the
intimacy
of the
relationship,
the arete
,
or the usefulness
(kcct'
oiKeiTTiTa
Kai
apETi^v r' xprjaiv;
1 165a
14-35).
The kind of
philia
that concerns us
here is the one based on the
useful;
this kind is short-lived and is established in order
to
gain
an
advantage (1156a 21-30;
1157a
14-15).
In this kind of
philia
the
people
involved are often of
unequal
status
(1
159b
12-14)
and the
repayment
is
proportional;
it sometimes consists of
paying
honor instead of
paying
in
goods (1158b 20-28;
1 163a 24- 1 163b
5).
The
superior party
in
philia-r'dXiom
between
unequals
should
receive a
larger
share of
honor,
and the
party
in need should receive more
profit (1
163b
1-3).
This
philia
is
regarded
as a business
partnership (1
163a
31)
and when one of the
,
parties
involved is no
longer
useful,
the other
party stops being
a
philos (1156a
19-
20)7.
Aristotle
explains
that he
gives
such relations the name of
philia
because this is
the common
view,
but adds that this is
philia only
in an
analogous
sense
(1157a
25-
Phoedus
,
in REG
,
95
(1982), p.
1-14;
S.
Goldhill, Reading
Greek
Tragedy , Cambridge,
1986;
G.
Herman, Ritualized
Friendship
and the Greek
City , Cambridge,
1987;
M.
Blundell, Helping
Friends and
Harming
Enemies
, Cambridge,
1989. Two recent
studies deal
exclusively
with the
subject
of
philia
: L.J.
Mitchell, op.
cit.
(n. 1), especially
p.
1-72;
D.
Konstan, Friendship
in the Classical World
, Cambridge,
1997, who, contrary
to
prevailing
views,
claims that
philia
was based on affection and
generosity
rather than
on
obligatory reciprocity.
See also L.
Foxhall,
The Politics
of Affection
: Emotional
Attachments in Athenian
Society ,
in P.
Cartledge,
P.
Millett,
S. von Reden
(eds),
Kosmos.
Essays
in Order
, Conflict
and
Community
in Classical Athens
, Cambridge,
1998,
p.
52-67.
6
On the
origins
of the terms
philia
and
philos
and their
meanings,
see
E. Ben
veniste,
La vocabulaire des institutions
indo-europennes
, Paris, 1969, p.
340-
346; Adkins,
loc. cit.
(n. 5);
J.T.
Hooker, Xpi
and
Aperri
in
Thucydides ,
in Hermes
,
102
(1974), p.
164-169; Taillardat,
loc. cit.
(n. 5).
7
Aristotle
compares
this kind of
philia
to
justice
-
just
as there are unwritten
(aYpaipov) justice
and
justice according
to the law
(mia v|iov),
there are also
philia
based
on a moral
obligation (fj0iicr|)
and
philia
based on a
legal obligation (vo^iKrj;
1162b 21-
23).
In the former
case,
the
gift,
or
service,
is rendered as if to a
friend,
but the
giver
expects
more in
return,
as in the case of a loan rather than a
gift (1162b 31-33). Konstan,
op.
cit.
(n. 5), p.
78,
seems to
misinterpret
Aristotle's
meaning by understanding
the
loan
metaphor literally.
This content downloaded from 181.47.45.65 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:17:55 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
68 R. ZELNICK-ABRAMOVrrZ
35).
Philia- relations are also of
great significance
in the life of the
community,
since
philia
is one of the
components
of Koivcovict
('partnership',
or
'communion')
and the
political
koinonia is the
superior (1
159b 25-1 160a
30).
Most of Aristotle's definitions are
already
found in Greek literature from
Homer onwards8. It
may, therefore,
be concluded that
philia
had a
reciprocal
dimension,
expressed
in
everyday usage by
the
terminology
of
gratitude
and
debt9;
that
/?/i7z-relations
were considered as a valuable
asset,
as
something involving
both
investment and
income;
that these relations were called
philia
even when of short
duration;
and that
philia
had an
implication
of
inequality
when formed
by persons
of
different social status. The
vocabulary
of
philia
was thus used in social contexts other
than familial or
friendly relations,
where it indicated
relationships
based on
exchange
between
unequals.
Aristotle's discussion makes it clear that in this
case,
contrary
to
the
ideology
of
friendship (which
is the kind of
philia
based on
arete), people
normally expected
the return of charis and
relationships
were often based on to
symphoron ,
the useful.
It was
probably
this useful and
unequal aspect
of
philia
that led scholars to
define it as
patronage,
either with the conscious intention of
identifying
it
(fully
or
with
reservations)
with the Roman
system
of
patron-client relations, or,
at
any rate,
unconsciously
influenced
by
the notion of these relations.
However,
the Roman
patronicium ,
or
patronage
as formulated
by
modern
sociologists,
has connotations and
rules that do not
necessarily correspond
to the social norms of Greek
society
and
-
when used in a Greek context
-
narrow our
perspective by guiding
us to look for a
model identical to the Roman or modern
sociological
definitions10.
By reading
texts
which contain the
terminology
of
philia
in the context of
interpersonal
relations
8
Philia is seen as a valuable
object
to be
pursued
and
cultivated,
and is also like an
insurance
policy
in times of crisis
(Xen., Mem., II, 4, 6-7; 6, 22-23; Pl.,
Phdr
., 233a;
Men., Dysk ., 797-812).
The
assumption
that one must
repay
a benefit is fundamental:
charis
begets
charis
(Soph., A/., 522; Eur., Hel., 1234),
and whoever does not remember
and does not
repay
charis is a base
person (Soph., Aj., 523-524; Xen., Mem., II, 2, 1-3; 4,
1-7; 6, 2-5;
cf.
Isae., 7, 8-9).
A
negative
reflection of this
concept
is found in
Eur., Ale.,
38-73: Thanatos will not render a charis to
Apollo,
because he never receives charis
;
he has
no
philoi
and does not
appreciate gifts.
Since
philia
is
something
that is
acquired (a Kirjai;
Pl., Lys., 211e; Xen., Mem., II, 4, 1),
whoever receives charis is in debt
((peitada)
until
he has
repaid (Thuc., II, 40, 4). Giving puts
one in a
superior position; receiving
renders
one inferior
(Hes., Op., 349-360).
Cf. also
Pl., Lys., 210c,
214e
-
215c
(a philos
is
XpTjoi^io),
215d
-
216b
(on
the
assumption
that
philoi
are of
unequal
status and
nature).
It
is therefore not
surprising
that two of the Suda' s definitions for
philos
are: vx xov
ocpeXo;
vT tot)
xpfai^io ('a
friend:
corresponding
to an
advantage, corresponding
to a useful
person'; Suda,
s.v.
<p,o [Adler, IV, 732, 410-411]).
For
examples
in
Homer,
see J.W.
Hewitt,
The
Terminology of
Gratitude in
Greek,
in
CPh,
22
(1927), p. 142-161;
for
examples
in
fourth-century orators,
see
Davies,
op.
cit.
(1981,
n.
1), p. 92-95; Ober, op.
cit.
(n. 1), p.
226-230.
9
See also
Adkins,
loc. cit.
(1963,
n.
5), p. 36; Herman, op.
cit.
(n. 5), p. 18-19;
Gallant, op.
cit.
(1991,
n.
1), p. 143-147; Millett, op.
cit.
(1991,
n.
1), p. 116-126;
von
Reden, op.
cit.
(n. 1), p. 45-47.
10
Admittedly,
a model can
simplify
a
complex reality,
while the traditional
philological
method has to handle a mass of
data,
to use Millett' s
presentation
of these
two
methods,
op.
cit.
(1991,
n.
1), p.
4. A
model, however,
might compel
one to look
only
for those texts that fit
it,
or to
interpret
them
according
to the chosen model.
This content downloaded from 181.47.45.65 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:17:55 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DID PATRONAGE EXIST IN CLASSICAL ATHENS? 69
between
unequals, together
with other terms which reflect
unequal
relations
(such
as
TtpoGTrri
and
kxxJ;,
which will be discussed
below),
I intend to show that a social
phenomenon
similar
-
but
by
no means identical
-
to
patronage
in its Roman or
sociological
form existed in Athenian
society.
I also contend that the differentiation
between
personal
and
public patronage (whose meaning
in Athenian terms will be
discussed
below)
was not relevant in democratic
Athens,
where the line
separating
the
individual citizen from the
community
was
very
fine,
in both
ideology
and
praxis.
*
Let us first examine the famous
story
told
by Xenophon (Mem., II, 9),
about
Crito and Archedemus. Crito
complains
that life in Athens is difficult for a man who
wants to mind his own business. He is now
being subjected
to law suits
by people
who think that he would rather
pay
them than
undergo
a trial. Socrates
suggests
he
should
keep (xpipeiv)
a
'watchdog',
as he does with his
sheep,
in order to fend off
those who
attempt
to
injure
him. When Crito
expresses
his concern that such a
person might
turn
against
him,
Socrates assures him that a
person
like that would
rather
please (%ap(ea0ai)
a man like Crito and
profit by
it and that there are
many
people
in Athens who would
satisfy
their love of honor
((piXoxijiia) by being philoi
of such a man as Crito.
Seeking
such a
'watchdog', they
found
Archedemus,
who was
skilled in
speaking
and
acting (eircev
Kai
repayai)
but
poor11.
Crito
gave
him food
and farm
products,
invited him to sacrificial
feasts,
and showed his concern
(eniniXeia)
for him in all matters. In
return,
Archedemus sued Crito's enemies and
agreed
to withdraw the actions in
exchange
for the withdrawal of
charges against
Crito
and
money compensation.
He came to
regard
Crito's house as a
refuge
and treated him
with
great respect.
Crito's
philoi
asked him to make Archedemus their
protector
too,
and Archedemus
kindly obliged Chco %apexo).
Whenever Archedemus' enemies
reproached
him
by saying
that he was
flattering (koxk'>oi)
Crito because he
profited
from
him,
Archedemus would answer: 'what is more
shameful,
to receive charis from
good
men and return charis
,
and so make them
philoi
and become the
enemy
of bad
men,
or to do
wrong
to the
good
and make them enemies and
try
to make friends with
the bad
by helping
them?' Henceforth Archedemus was one of Crito's
philoi
and was
respected by
Crito's other
philoi.
The verb
trephein
,
which I have translated here as 'to
keep',
has the basic
meaning
of
'nourishing', 'feeding'.
The
analogy
made
by
Socrates between the
trephein
of a man and the
trephein
of a
watchdog
indeed seems to
convey
the exact
nature of the
relationship eventually
established between Crito and Archedemus.
Archedemus was chosen not
only
because he was an able
speaker,
but also because he
was
poor
and therefore needed material
support
and 'friends' of
higher
status.
Accordingly,
his
relationship
with Crito was a
relationship
between two
parties
of
unequal
status who
exchanged
services and
goods.
Archedemus was one of those
1 1
This Archedemus is
probably
the one ridiculed
by
comic
poets (Eupolis,
fr.
9;
80
Kassel & Austin
(
PCG
); Ar., Ran., 420-425, 588)
and said
by
Xen., Hell., I, 7, 2,
to have
been a democratic
leader,
one of the accusers of the
generals
after
Arginousai,
a rascal
(Lys.,
14.
25),
and a
pro-Thebean (Aesch., 3, 139; Plut.,
De Gen.
Soc.,
1
[Mor., 575d]).
See
Connor, op.
cit.
(n. 5), p.
35,
n.
1;
R.
Osborne,
Vexatious
Litigation
in Classical
Athens:
Sykophancy
and the
Sykophant,
in P.
Cartledge,
P. Millett & S. Todd
(eds),
Nomos.
Essays
in Athenian
Law,
Politics and
Society, Cambridge,
1990,
p.
97-98.
This content downloaded from 181.47.45.65 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:17:55 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
70 R. ZELNICK-ABRAMOVrrZ
people, according
to
Socrates,
who fulfill their
philotimia by cultivating philia-
relations with a
person
of Crito's status. This is not true
friendship,
but a
businesslike
relationship,
which consists of mutual interest and
reciprocity.
Another
component
in this
philia
is
loyalty:
Crito's concern that this kind of man
might
change loyalties points
to the
shifting
nature of such
relations,
but Socrates assures
him that it is worthwhile for men like Archedemus to benefit men like Crito and thus
be benefited in return.
Loyalty, then,
lasts as
long
as the
parties
involved
profit
from
each other. Crito's
profit
lies in
getting
rid of his
enemies,
and he
repays
Archedemus
by giving
him food and
calling
him 'his
philos ';
Archedemus
reciprocates by
honoring
Crito and
by rendering
him the favor
(
echarizeto
)
of
helping
his
philoi
in the
same
way;
these
philoi reciprocate by seeing
Archedemus as their
philos
and
by
respecting
him.
This
story
has
already
attracted the attention of
scholars,
either because of the
unequal
basis of the
relationship
described in it or because of the kind of
strategy
that
was
suggested by
Socrates and used
by
Crito12. It is also one of the texts used
by
Millett in his article on the avoidance of
patronage
in Athens. Millett
regards
this
story
as
anticipating
4
a common device of Roman
patronage: preserving appearances
by disguising
clients as
amici',
yet
he thinks that this is a rare
example
of
'personal
patronage',
and therefore of no
important consequence13.
But as can be
seen,
the
story
contains all the
components
of the kind of
philia which,
according
to
Aristotle,
is
based on the
useful,
does not
last,
and exists between
unequal parties.
It is not
surprising
that this kind of
philia
existed between a
wealthy
and a
respected
man like
Crito and what Connor calls an
'impoverished
and
relatively
obscure
politician'
like
Archedemus14. Nor is their
relationship
a
product
of the
change
in Athenian
politics
in the late fifth
century,
which enabled
poor
citizens to ascend to
political
eminence
by
virtue of their oratorical and forensic
ability15.
Both Millett and
Harvey emphasize
the
scarcity
of such relations in Athens.
Harvey
also
argues
that Crito's
strategy
was not
typical
and that since
Xenophon
tells
this
story
in some
detail,
this
strategy
'is unusual'16.
However,
Crito's reaction
indicates that the idea was not novel to
him;
he
merely expressed
his concern that
such a
person might
turn
against
him. It seems that Crito had
already experienced
this
kind of
relationship
and seen how it ended. He therefore feared that
accepting
Socrates'
suggestion might
involve him in a
relationship
based on a mutual but not
lasting
interest. Crito was not the
only
Athenian
besieged by sykophants,
and Archedemus
was not the
only
one to
provide help
in such
cases,
as the
story
about Charmides
12
See
Connor, op.
cit.
(n. 5), p.
35-36; Davies, op.
cit.
(1981,
n.
1), p.
117;
F.D.
Harvey,
The
Sykophant
and
Sykophancy
: Vexatious
Redefinition ?,
in
P.
Cartledge,
P. Millett & S. Todd
(eds), op.
cit.
(n. 11), p. 116;
R.
Osborne,
loc. cit.
(n. 11), p.
96-98. See also
Herman, op.
cit.
(n. 5), p. 87,
who
interprets
this
story
as
an
example
of 'how a man could act on behalf of another man within the
city's
institutional
machinery'; Konstan, op.
cit.
(n. 5), p. 57,
who sees this
story
as an
example
of the
concept
that
friendship
is based not
only
on sentiments and intentions but also on
deeds;
and
Mitchell, op.
cit.
(n. 1), p.
42 and n.
6,
who
regards
the
story
as
referring
to
'patronage relationship
of some sort'.
13
Millett,
loc. cit.
(1989,
n.
1), p. 33,
36.
14
Connor, op.
cit.
(n. 5), p.
35.
15
As
argued by 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 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DID PATRONAGE EXIST IN CLASSICAL ATHENS? 71
shows. When Charmides was
rich,
he was
always
afraid of
burglars
and
sykophants,
and therefore he acted as their servant
(eGeparceDev)
and felt like their
slave;
but once
he lost his
fortune,
he felt like a
tyrant (Xen., Symp., 4, 30-32)17.
It
seems, therefore,
that Crito's
strategy
was not new to
Xenophon,
and that
this
story
was not
exceptional,
but
merely
one in a series of other stories
concerning
Socrates' views on
philia
and
reciprocity,
all of which are
similarly
of 'some detail'
(Mem., II, 1-10)18.
In one of these stories
(Mem., II, 10)
Socrates exhorts Diodorus
to
help
a
poor
man
by
the name of
Hermgenes
and take care of him as he does his
slaves.
Hermgenes
is a
very
self-conscious
man,
says
Socrates,
and will be ashamed
to receive
help
without
reciprocating.
Therefore,
Socrates
suggests
that Diodorus use
Hermgenes,
who is much more useful than
slaves,
4
as a
willing, well-disposed
and
steadfast attendant
(')7cr|pTr|), capable
of
doing
what he is
told,
and also able to be
useful
unbidden, by thinking clearly
and
giving
advice.' Socrates reminds Diodorus of
what
good
landlords
say:
it is best to
buy
a valuable
object
when its
price
is
low;
'now is the best
time',
says
Socrates,
'to
acquire good
friends
(cpmx;... kitigocgGcci)'.
Diodorus
accepts
Socrates'
suggestion
and at a
cheap price acquires
a
philos
who
makes
every
effort to benefit and
please
him
by
word or
by
deed
(f' iycov f' Tupaxxcov).
The
vocabulary
of
philia
is similar in both these
stories,
although
the latter is
much more blatant
-
philia ,
which here means
giving money
in return for
services,
is
an
object
to be
bought, preferably
at a low
price.
It can therefore be concluded that
Crito's
strategy
was not
unusual;
nor can the relations he created with Archedemus be
termed 'a minor social
phenomenon'19.
It
might
be
argued
that
Xenophon presented
an ideal Socrates who
preached
on the ideal
way
of
living.
However,
presenting
Socrates as a
promoter
of the useful
philia
would have failed to achieve
Xenophon'
s
object
of
defending
Socrates'
name,
unless this kind of
philia
was normative.
17
Similarly,
Plutarch
(Nic., 4, 4)
tells how Nicias
gave money
to those who could
harm
him,
no less than to those who were
worthy
of his benefits. Ischomachus
practiced
the art of rhetoric to fend off
sykophants (Xen.,
Oec
., XI, 21-25).
The
speaker
in
[Dem.,]
25, 41,
claims that
Aristogeiton
used to take
money
from
peaceful
citizens in return for
withdrawing
law suits which he
brought against
them. The same
charge
is
brought against
people
like
Theokrines, Hyperides, Thucydides
and Demosthenes in
[Dem.,] 58, 40;
65.
Harvey,
loc. cit.
(1990,
n.
12), p.
116, regards
the stories about Charmides and
Ischomachus as
examples
of methods of
dealing
with
sykophants
other than that of Crito.
Yet,
the relations of
exchange
and
dependence apparent
in all these anecdotes indicate a
common
practice.
For an
original interpretation
of the word
avKovrri ,
and a
survey
of
its
usage
and
interpretations
in ancient and modern
times,
see J.
Labarbe, Physiologie
du
sycophante ,
in BAB
,
7
(1996), p.
143-171. For the verb
therapeuein ,
see
Mitchell, op.
cit.
(n. 1), p.
11,
n.
69,
who counts it with words which can indicate
'friendly' activity
and
precede p/i///<z-relations;
but as she
admits,
'this refers to...
probably
more
unequal
relationships'.
18
Cf.
Xen., An., VII, 7, 37-47; Mem., II,
2-3 deal with
philia
between
parents
and
children and between brothers. I find it hard to
accept
Konstan's
argument (op.
cit.
[n. 5],
p. 79)
that
Xenophon distinguishes
between
philia (II, 2-3)
and
philoi (4-10).
19
As claimed
by
Millett,
loc. cit.
(1989,
n.
1), p.
36.
Konstan, op.
cit.
(n. 5),
p. 80, interprets
the
philia
stories in
Xenophon
as Socrates' criticism on the
way people
neglect
their
friends,
and claims that words like chraomai
,
chreia and chresimos do not refer
to the
calculating exploitation
of
friends; yet
these words are common in Greek texts
besides
Xenophon
in association with
philoi ,
and therefore indicate a common
concept.
This content downloaded from 181.47.45.65 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:17:55 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
72 R. ZELNICK-ABRAMOVrrZ
*
As mentioned
above,
scholars make a distinction between
public
and
personal
patronage.
In Millett's
opinion, public pay,
or the redistribution of income to the
poor,
'was a
practical
antidote to
personal patronage'20.
In this he follows M.I.
Finley,
who detected in the
story concerning
Pericles' introduction of the
jurors' pay
(Arist.,
Ath. Pol
., 27, 3)
an alternative form of 'crisis
insurance',
while
discounting
the
way
in which Aristotle reduced the conflict between the
patronage
of the
wealthy
and the
suppression
of it
by
democratic means to a
personal (and political) rivalry
between Pericles and Cimon21. Millett
agrees
with
Finley
that the introduction of
public pay
was a democratic substitute for the loans
given by
Pisistratus,
for
example,
to the
peasants.
To this he adds
philia
-
which he
interprets
as
existing only
between
relatives,
neighbors
and friends
-
and the eranoi22.
Yet,
as Millett himself
explains,
an Athenian citizen needed
philoi
in order to benefit from an ranos
,
and
philoi
were not
necessarily relatives,
neighbors
or friends.
Furthermore,
what Pericles
did was not
very
different from what Cimon did: Cimon
opened
his house and fields to
his demotai
(or
to all the
citizens,
according
to
Theopompus,
115 F 89 J.
[Athen.,
XII, 533a-c])23,
and distributed
money
to
poor
citizens
(Plut.,
Cim
., 10; Per., 9);
Pericles distributed
money
out of the
public treasury,
and not out of his own
purse.
Both
aspired
to
political
eminence and reached it
by benefiting
the
poor.
Cimon
may
have done this on a smaller scale and
by private means,
but his aim and motives also
lay
in the
public sphere.
Crito's
problem
and his solution likewise seem to
belong
to the
private
sphere:
he desires to avoid trouble and succeeds
by creating philia
with an individual.
There
is, however,
a
public aspect
to their relations: Crito uses Archedemus to fend
off his enemies in the law courts
-
the embodiment of the demos'
sovereignty.
Indeed,
he
repays
Archedemus
by giving
him
food,
but he also includes him in his social
circle,
a
very important
medium for a
poor
and ambitious
politician.
Archedemus can
thus use his new connections to advance his
position
in the
public sphere
and move
up
the social ladder. He does not
repay
Crito in
goods
or
money,
but rather in services
which
belong
to the
public sphere24.
20
Millett,
loc. cit.
(1989,
n.
1), p.
38.
21
Ibid.,
p. 38; Finley, op.
cit.
(n. 1), p. 39-40,
47.
Nevertheless,
Finley clearly
speaks
of
'personal patronage'
as
being
still
possible
in the second half of the fifth
century
B.C.
(p. 45-47).
P. Schmitt
Pantel,
La cit au
banquet.
Histoire des
repas publics
dans les cits
grecques , Rome, 1992,
p. 193-196,
while
admitting
that the introduction of
the
public pay
did not abolish
private
acts of
generosity,
denies
any
correlation between
the conduct of Pericles and that of Cimon.
22
Millett,
loc. cit.
(1989,
n.
1), p. 38-41.
23
According
to
Theopompus,
Cimon also
Oeprceuev every day any
one who asked
for his
help.
See 115 F 135 J.
(Athen., XII,
532f
-
533a)
on a similar
story
about
Pisistratus.
24
Cf.
Davies, op.
cit.
(1981,
n.
1), p. 97,
who claims that Cimon acted in a
very
similar
way
to the Roman clientela
,
deploying
his
property by showing
charis to the
whole
polis
and to the
poor.
In Osborne's view
(loc.
cit.
[n. 11], p. 98),
Crito
applied
to
Archedemus the sort of
patronage
bestowed
by politicians
like Cimon on the whole
community,
thus
distorting
both traditional and new methods to obtain
political
influence
for his own
personal
interests. See
Finley, op.
cit.
(n. 1), p. 40, 45-46,
who claims that
This content downloaded from 181.47.45.65 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:17:55 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DID PATRONAGE EXIST IN CLASSICAL ATHENS? 73
This
public
dimension of
philia
is also demonstrated in
fourth-century
orations,
which
provide many examples
of
using philoi
as witnesses or
prosecutors25.
Moreover,
in most cases these
philoi
received
money
in return for their services or
used the
money
to
'arrange' (mpaaKEueoGai)
witnesses and a favorable verdict26.
Philoi were also used in the
Assembly
and the Council27.
Although
the abundance of
accusations of
giving
and
receiving
bribes
may
create the
impression
of a rhetorical
topos
,
or of an
argument arbitrarily
used
against
rivals,
it nevertheless indicates a
prevailing phenomenon.
These
philoi
were not
necessarily
friends,
but
people
hired ad
hoc to solve a
private problem
in a
public
institution. The services Archedemus
performed
for Crito were no different from those that other
philoi performed
for
private
citizens, strategoi
or rhetores. It is true that almost
nothing
is known about
the status of these
philoi ,
but the
following examples
show that Socrates'
suggestion
was in line with a common
practice
and that
private philia
was often used in the
public sphere.
1. Orations 28 and 29 of
Lysias
reveal the nature of the
relationship
between
Ergocles (the
defendant in no.
28)
and Philocrates
(the
defendant in no.
29).
These two
Athenians,
according
to the
speaker
in oration no.
28,
were
philoi
and
KXaice
('flatterers')
of
Thrasybulus,
with whom
they
went on a
military expedition
to Asia
Minor. Their collaboration with him made them rich
( 4). Ergocles
valued
Philocrates more than
anyone
else and treated him like a
very
close friend. He took
him from
among
the
hoplites,
made him his
purser
and
finally appointed
him as a
trierarch
(29. 3).
The
speaker
in oration no. 29
says
it is
strange
that Philocrates
should volunteer to undertake the
trierarchy,
since he had no
property.
Therefore,
he
reasons,
Ergocles
must have
arranged
for Philocrates to
gain profit
and to
guard
Ergocles' money,
because he had no one whom he trusted more than him
( 4).
If we
are to believe the
speaker, Ergocles
became the
philos
of
Philocrates,
who was
inferior in status. Their
philia
was based not
only
on
trust,
but also on
reciprocal
Cimon exercised
'personal patronage'
and that a
poor
citizen in Athens could either
'become the client of a Cimon or the client of the state.'
25
E.g.,
Lys., 15, 1-6, 10; 26, 15; [Dem.,] 49, 10, 38; 50, 27-28; 59, 43; Aesch., 2,
184;
see
Ober, op.
cit.
(n. 1), p. 218-219,
258.
26
E.g., Lys., 28, 9; 29, 6-7, 12; 30, 31; Dem., 21, 112-113, 139-140; 51, 16,
20-
22.
According
to F.D.
Harvey,
Dona Ferentes: Some
Aspects of Bribery
in Greek Politics
,
in P.A. Cartledge & F.D. Harvey
(eds.),
Crux.
Essays
Presented to G.E.M. de Ste. Croix
,
Exeter, 1985, p.
76-117,
the orators
may
have
deliberately
chosen words like
7iapaGKD(xeG0(xi
to
put
the notion of
bribery
into the
jurors'
minds. Cf.
Moss,
loc. cit.
(n. 1), p.
149,
n.
21, 150,
n. 23. On
bribery
in
Athens,
see also S.
Perlman,
On Bri-
bing
Athenian Ambassadors
,
in GRBS
,
17
(1976), p.
223-233.
27
See
Theophr., Char., 29, 4-5,
on the
philoponeros
who
helps people
in the courts
and the
Assembly.
The
story
told
by
Xen., Hell., I, 7, 8,
that Theramenes' men
(o 7cep
xv
Gepa^vri) arranged (rcapeaKetxxoav)
for the
appearance
of
mourning
relatives in the
assembly
that was to decide on the fate of the
generals
who
fought
at
Arginusai, may point
to the same
method;
cf.
Mitchell, op.
cit.
(n. 1), p.
42-43. M.H.
Hansen,
The Athenian
Democracy
in the
Age of
Demosthenes, Oxford, 1991,
p.
284, rightly
stresses that the
mourners did not form a
political party,
but fails to notice the
political importance
of
'those around'
Theramenes,
who
arranged
for a wide ad hoc
support
in the
assembly.
See
also
Konstan, op.
cit.
(n. 5), p.
65-67. For other
examples,
see R.K.
Sinclair,
Demo-
cracy
and
Participation
in Athens
, Cambridge,
1988, 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 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
74 R. ZELNICK-ABRAMOVrrZ
services. But when
Ergocles
was
put
to
death,
all sentiments connected with this
philia disappeared:
Philocrates obtained the
money
that
Ergocles
had embezzled and
used it to
procure
witnesses to
testify
that he was the
greatest enemy
of
Ergocles
( 7).
Since
Ergocles
could be of no further use to
Philocrates,
their
philia ,
which had
involved him in a
lawsuit,
was void.
2. The defendant in
Lys.,
19 enumerates his father's merits and services to the
polis.
Besides
many liturgies
and
generous eisphora- donations,
his father also
helped
his
philoi
-
he contributed to the
daughters
and sisters of
needy citizens,
ransomed
fellow
citizens,
and
gave
others
money
for burial
( 56-59).
The reason
why
his father
did all
this,
says
the
defendant,
was because he
thought
that a
good
man should
help
his
philoi ,
even if no one hears about it. Yet it seems
improbable
that all those
people
were true friends of his
father;
if he
really helped
them,
he
probably
acted not
only
out of
altruism,
but also with an
eye
to future
gain.
This is made clear
by
the
fact that the
private
benefits are mentioned
along
with the
public
benefits,
evidently
in
order to
gain
the charis of the
demos,
that is
-
a favorable verdict. Thus his father's
philia
towards
private
citizens is made known and used in a
public
context28.
3.
Apollodorus,
in
[Dem.], 59, 72,
claims that
Stephanus helped Theogenes
in
his dokimasia when the latter was chosen
by
lot for the
position
of archon-basileus.
When
Theogenes
entered his
office,
Stephanus gave
him
money, bought
from him the
position
of an assistant to the archon and married him to Neaera's
daughter.
If
Apollodorus
is
telling
the
truth,
Stephanus helped Theogenes (who
is described as
poor)
to obtain an honorable
position
in return for a
public position
for himself and
social
recognition
for Neaera's
daughter. Although
there is no mention of
philia
in
this
text,
it is clear that these relations were based on mutual interest in the
public
sphere
and consisted of an
exchange
of services between
unequals.
4. The same
Apollodorus,
in another oration
([Dem.], 53, 1-14),
tells the
judges
how his
neighbor
and
philos
Nicostratus received
many
benefits from him.
Nicostratus was also useful to
him,
for when
Apollodorus
was
away
on
military
service or
business,
Nicostratus
managed
his estate. When Nicostratus was taken
captive
while
searching
for three
runaway slaves,
Apollodorus
made
every
effort and
spent large
sums of
money
to free him. Yet Nicostratus did not
repay
the charis
,
and
this insult moved
Apollodorus
to seek
revenge
in the law court. That Nicostratus was
not
equal
to
Apollodorus
is revealed
by Apollodorus'
use of the verb
rcpoaxxxeiv:
he
recounts that when he had to
go
to the
Peloponnese
as a
trierarch,
he wrote to
Nicostratus and ordered him
(7cpoaxa^a)
to
manage
his estate in his absence
( 5).
Furthermore,
although
Nicostratus had land of his
own,
he must have had less
money
than
Apollodorus
if he asked
Apollodorus
for
help
and if two of his three slaves had
been
given
to him
by Apollodorus ( 6)29. Among
the three
brothers, Nicostratus,
28
Cf.
Dem., 18, 268-269,
who recounts his
private (ioi)
benefits
along
with his
benefits to the
public (rcp xrv nXiv),
and
argues
that in his
opinion
the benefited should
always
remember their
benefits,
while the benefactor should
forget
them
immediately
(which
he of course does
not).
29
Cf.
Xen.,
Oec
Ill, 5,
on the economic
gap
between
landowners,
and
Symp 4, 35,
on the different economic lot of brothers who inherited an
equal
share.
Millett, op.
cit.
(1991,
n.
1), p. 54,
claims that both
Apollodorus
and Nicostratus
belonged
to 'the
upper
end of
society',
and that the fact that three slaves ran
away
from Nicostratus is indicative of
This content downloaded from 181.47.45.65 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:17:55 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DID PATRONAGE EXIST IN CLASSICAL ATHENS? 75
Deinon and
Arethusius,
the last was considered to be the wealthiest
( 28)30,
and
Deinon admitted a lack of means
( 6). Although Apollodorus
wanted the
judges
to
believe that the three brothers were
rich,
it seems that
they
did not share the
family
property equally,
that Nicostratus' means were less than
Arethusius',
and
definitely
less than
Apollodorus'.
Therefore,
the
philia
that existed between
Apollodorus
and
Nicostratus consisted of relations of
exchange
between two citizens of
unequal
status
and its bitter end was used as an issue
concerning
the
public.
5. Andcides
(1, 147)
reminds the
judges
of how his
family
has
always
been
ko tv cox
airi ('affable', 'courteous')
to
needy
citizens. This reminder is one of his
arguments
for an
acquittal
in a
public
trial.
Thus,
like in the case of
Lys.,
19
(see
the
second
example), private
benefits are shown as
belonging
to the
public
concern.
6. A
slightly
different
example
of
philia
is that of Phocion
who,
when still
young,
associated with Chabrias and followed him
(Plut.,
Phoc
., 6,
1
-
7, 2).
Chabrias loved Phocion and
helped
him to advance to
leadership.
He
gave
him
military positions
and made him
respected by
all the Greeks. In
return,
Phocion served
Chabrias and
respected
him
(BepocTcrcov
iocx,ei Kai
xijicov; 7, 2).
After Chabrias'
death Phocion took care of Chabrias'
relatives,
especially
of his son
Ctesippus,
and
covered
up
the later' s shameful deeds.
Once,
when
Ctesippus
had troubled Phocion too
much,
he cried:
'Chabrias,
I
repay your philia
with
great
charis when I bear with
your
son!'
(7, 2).
The difference between this and the
previous
stories is that true
friendship
seems to have existed between Chabrias and Phocion.
Nonetheless,
this
philia
had
also been created between two
unequal parties
and consisted of an
exchange
of
services.
Moreover,
Phocion felt
obliged
to extend this
philia
to his
philos'
s relatives
after Chabrias' death. Plutarch describes elsewhere
(
Praec . Ger.
Reip
.,
1 1
[Mor.
805e-
f])
Phocion' s relation to Chabrias as an
ivy twining
itself around a
strong
tree and
climbing upwards
with its
support.
He includes Phocion
among
other famous
men,
such as
Aristeides,
who chose the safe and
leisurely way
to enter
politics:
while still
young
and unknown
they
attached themselves to older and famous
men,
increased their
strength through
them,
and thus rooted themselves
firmly
in the state.
All these
examples
contain elements of the useful
philia
:
personal
relations
involving
an
exchange
of services between two individuals of different status.
Indeed,
the
first,
fourth and sixth cases
imply
that close relations
preceded
mutual
profit, yet
this
profit helped
to maintain the
philia.
Furthermore,
these
personal
relations had
their
implications
in the
public sphere
-
they
were the cause of lawsuits or were used
as
arguments
for
acquittal,
or were means for
advancing
a
public
career
(as
in the cases
of
Ergocles-Philocrates
and
Chabrias-Phocion).
In other
words,
the
private aspect
of
these relations was
brought up
and described as
belonging
to the
public
domain. This
indicates that the line
separating
the
private
and the
public spheres
of life in
democratic Athens was
very
fine and that
private
interests were often
presented
as
public31.
Both Pericles and
Crito,
for
example,
used methods and
expressions
his relative wealth. But
Apollodorus
states
specifically
that he himself
gave
two of the
slaves to Nicostratus!
30
On Arethusius see also J.K.
Davies,
Athenian
Propertied
Families
,
600-300
B.C.,
Oxford, 1971, p.
481,
no.
12413,
n. 1.
31
According
to
Millett, op.
cit.
(1991,
n.
1), p.
86,
this fact is revealed in the
perception
that
performing liturgies
could be
profitable,
in the narrow financial sense. It
must be
noted, though,
that
liturgies
were often mentioned
by litigants
in order to
gain
This content downloaded from 181.47.45.65 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:17:55 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
76 R. ZELNICK-ABRAMOVrrZ
belonging
to
interpersonal
relations in order to
acquire political strength
or to avoid
public
involvement. Athenian
demagogues'
methods of
flattering
the
demos,
declaring
their
philia
towards
it,
and
promising
economic
advantages
in order to
gain political
influence,
were no different from Philocrates' use of
Ergocles' philia
towards him or
from the use of
philoi
to fend off
prosecutors
or to
gain
an
acquittal.
Hence,
iphilia
was a built-in
component
of Athenian
democracy,
as much as were
equal rights
and
public pay.
If we are to believe Aristotle
(Ath. Pol., 27, 3)
that the motive for
introducing
the
jurors' pay
was Pericles'
political rivalry
with
Cimon,
then it was neither
4
a
practical
antidote to
personal patronage'
nor
4
a democratic substitute' as Millett
claims32. The above
examples
show
clearly
that
needy
citizens could also
improve
their life and status
by benefiting wealthy
and influential citizens and thus
creating
philia-
relations with them. This method coexisted with democratic
ideology
and
practice.
Economic
inequality
was not overcome
by introducing public pay,
nor
by
using
eranoi. Poor and ambitious citizens still needed
personal help
and
influence33,
which
they
were
willing
to
repay
as
long
as the
payment
was considered as charis due
to a
philos
.
They
could
pay
not
only
in
money
and
personal services,
but also
by
helping
their
philoi
in the
public sphere.
This
penetration
of
philia'
s set of rules and
vocabulary
into
politics
and
public
life was not
new;
it had
probably
also characterized
Athens in former
centuries,
to
judge
from
e.g.
Herodotus' and Aristotle's use of its
vocabulary
in
dealing
with
Isagoras
and Cleisthenes
(Hdt., V, 70; Arist.,
Ath .
Pol.,
20, 3). Democracy
neither eliminated nor
superseded
it
by creating
a new
vocabulary
and alternative
ways,
but rather harnessed it to its
purposes
and
ideology. Thus,
a
(pi,7toXi ('a
lover of the
polis'),
or a
cpiSino ('a
lover of the
demos'),
was a
citizen who acted in the interests of the
demos34,
and the demos'
recognition
of a
citizen's
political
eminence was seen as charis
paid
in return for
good
civil behavior
and for services rendered to the
demos;
again,
this charis was to be
repaid by
further
serving
the demos35.
Admittedly, philia
towards the demos was to be
placed
above
private /?/z///z-relations36,
and
philotimia
was to be
put
in the service of the demos
31
.
charis from the
judges (e.g., Lys., 18, 21; 21, 1-14; [Dem.,] 25, 76; Dem., 42, 23),
and not
only performed
in order to
gain profit
and influence in
society.
See also
Davies, 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
and Ritual: Homer and
Tragedy
in the
Developing City -State, Oxford, 1994, p. 194-198;
and von
Reden, op.
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,
loc. cit.
(n. 1), p.
150,
who
rightly
notes that
inequality,
or
asymmetry,
in such relations could take various forms and
was not
necessarily
related to fortunes.
34
See
Ar., Eq., 787; Nub., 1187;
Vesp., 887-888; Lys., 547; Plut., 900; Thuc., II,
60, 5; VI, 92, 2-4; Eur., Suppl., 506-508;
Phoen
.,
406-407. On the
language
of
philia
in
Athenian
politics,
see
Connor, op.
cit.
(n. 5), p.
99-108.
35
Ar., Eq., esp. 1152-1155, 1205; Isoc., 8, 121; 15, 132-134; Dem., 18, 112; 20,
154; [Lys.1, 20,
30-35.
36
E.g., Soph., Ant., 182-191;
cf.
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; Dem., 19,
223. Cf. D.
Whitehead, Competitive Outlay
and
Community Profit
:
OiXoxi^ia
in Democratic
Athens,
in
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 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DID PATRONAGE EXIST IN CLASSICAL ATHENS? 77
But when
private
relations could be used to demonstrate either one's
philia
to the
demos or a rival's
|iiGo8r||iia ('loathing
of the
demos'),
or to
gain
charts from the
demos,
then one's behavior was in line with democratic
ideology.
Thus,
the
language
of
philia
was used in
politics,
with all the overtones of
interpersonal
relations. The ambivalent attitude to this norm is
naturally
reflected in
the
writings
of moralists. Plutarch relates two
contradictory
stories about
Themistocles' and Kleon's attitude to
philia.
When Kleon decided to enter
politics,
he
renounced all former relations with his
philoi
because he did not want to be influenced
in his choice of
political path; conversely,
Themistocles claimed that there was no
advantage
in office if it could not be used to
help
one's
philoi (
Praec . Ger.
Reip .,
13
[Mor., 806f; 807a-b]).
Yet Plutarch censures Kleon for
substituting
flatterers for
philoi
and
making
them his hetairoi
(rcpoaexaipinevo;
ibid., 807a),
while
concerning
Themistocles he cites the answer
given by
Themistocles to the
poet
Simonides,
who asked for his
help
in
obtaining
an office: 'Neither would he be a
good
poet
who
sings
out of
tune,
nor would one be a
good
archon who renders favors in
contradiction to the law'
(mp
xv
v^iov xocpi|nevo;
807b;
cf.
Them., 5).
These
stories
presumably
reflect different traditions about these
politicians,
but
they
also
reflect the use of
/?/ii7/a-vocabulary
in
politics
and the ambivalent attitude to this norm
of behavior. Themistocles and Kleon
very probably
needed
philoi
in their
political
career,
and when in
power
were able to
help
and render favors to
them;
yet,
for the
sake of their
public image they
had to behave as
though
their
philia
was directed
towards the whole demos.
Thus,
by reading
the sources
carefully,
we can infer that rich and
powerful
citizens,
susceptible
to attacks
by sykophants
and
political
rivals,
created ad hoc
p//'a-relations
in order to obtain
help
and
protection
in return for services. Their new
philoi
were
usually
inferior in social and economic status and therefore
willingly
entered relations of
philia
and
dependence. Being
called
philoi
of the
superior
citizens
satisfied their
philotimia
and
helped
them to move
up
the social ladder.
They
were
called
philoi
even when 'hired' for a strict
purpose,
such as
acquitting
their
philos
or
convicting
his rival in the law courts. Crito's
anxiety
and Philocrates' behavior
towards his former
philos
show that such a
philia may
end when the mutual interest
no
longer
exists,
or when the interests of one of the
parties
involved lie elsewhere.
Philia of that kind was created to
pave
the
way
to
public activity,
or to avoid it. The
problems
confronted
by
Crito,
Ergocles,
Philocrates and others
might
have been
private,
but the courtroom was the arena of the
public,
of the demos
exercising
its
sovereignty.
As the
fourth-century
orators
show,
the
people's
verdict was considered a
charis,
and the
judges
an
object
of
courting
and
flattery.
Both a
public figure
like
Ergocles
and a
private
citizen like Crito needed the charis of the demos and used
philia
to
gain
it. Poor citizens in democratic Athens could
rely
on
public
funds and
occasional corn
distributions,
but in order to
improve
their social status and
political
position they
created
/?/n//-relations
with more
distinguished
and influential citizens.
In other
words,
they
became
dependent
on the
generosity
and
'friendship'
of others in
return for services in the
public sphere.
These services also made
philia
essential for
influential
politicians.
The
story
about Phocion is different because the
philia
lasted
even after Chabrias' death and had
nothing
to do with the law court. Yet this
philia
too had its
implications
in the
public sphere
and was seen as
consisting
of an
obligation
to
repay
charis.
This content downloaded from 181.47.45.65 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:17:55 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
78 R. ZELNICK-ABRAMOVrrZ
*
In the
light
of the above we can now return to the
question posed
at the
beginning:
Was there
patronage
in Athens? This can be best answered
by considering
in what
ways
Greek
philia
was different from or similar to Roman
patronage.
As we have
seen,
the
vocabulary
of
philia
was
applied
to a wide scale of
interpersonal
relations,
including
in contexts other than familial or
friendly
relations.
Moreover,
there is no evidence of
terminology
or rules
specifically denoting
relations
between two
unequal parties
who
exchange
services and are neither related to each
other nor friends in the true sense of the word. Unlike the Roman
patronicium ,
the
Greeks did not define
legally
the
obligations expected
of the
parties
involved either in
the
private
or in the
public sphere. They
had no
special
words to denote either the
more
powerful
or
wealthy party
to these relations or the inferior
party. Certainly,
there were words that
conveyed
the
meaning
of relations between
unequals
such as
KXcL^ ('flatterer')
and
TcpoaTOxri ('one
who stands in
front';
'a
protector')38.
A kolax
could be
presented
as a
philos (Arist.,
Eth.
Nic.,
1159a
14-15),
and a
philos
could be
regarded
as a kolax
(as
Archedemus was in the
eyes
of his
enemies,
and as
Ergocles
and Philocrates were accused of
being by
the
speaker
in
Lys., 28, 4).
A
prostates
could be a
political
leader,
or a citizen who
represented
a metic. But in
Xenophon
(
Oec
., II, 5-9),
this
word,
and the
corresponding
verb
(rcpooTCCTeeiv),
seem to
signify
the
protection
and
help
rendered
by
a
wealthy
and influential citizen to a fellow citizen
in need. In this
passage,
Socrates enumerates the duties
expected
of Critobulus as a
wealthy
citizen. These consist of
providing sacrifices,
entertaining foreigners, giving
dinners and
benefiting
citizens in order to retain
followers,
and of duties exacted
by
the
polis
-
liturgies
of various kinds and
prostasia ( 5-6).
This
prostasia
is
apparently
associated with
spending money
on the
public
and considered as an
obligation
to the
demos: if Critobulus fails to do what is
expected
of
him,
he will be
punished by
the
Athenians. Socrates
explains
that to be rich means
spending great
sums of
money
and
helping philoi ,
and therefore Critobulus
may
find himself in need
( 8).
Critobulus
then asks Socrates to be his
prostates (prostateuein )
and
help
him avoid a
pitiable
condition
( 9).
Although
Critobulus uses this verb
metaphorically,
it is clear that
prostates
means here
being
in a
superior position
and
helping
the inferior39. Yet besides this
story,
no Athenian citizen was ever described in the sources as
having
a
prostates ;
parties
to this kind of
relationship
were called
philoi.
To
explain
this fact we
may
return to Aristotle's discussion of
philia
and note that in his view even relations
between
parents
and children are relations between
unequals, involving
an
obligation
to
reciprocate
(Eth. Nic.,
1161a
15-21;
1162a
4-9).
Thus
philia was,
on the one
hand,
the natural term for
interpersonal relations, regardless
of the motive. On the other
hand,
receiving
benefits from a more influential and
wealthy
citizen and
being obliged
to return charis could be
regarded by
the
community
as
dependence,
as
something
similar to
slavery,
or as kolakeia. Aristotle
says
as much when he defines
megalopsychia
and declares that to live under another is slavish
(rcp
aXXov
f|v...
odikv),
unless he be a
philos ,
and therefore flatterers are
hirelings (0t|tiko;
Eth.
38
See the discussion in
Millett,
loc. cit.
(1989,
n.
1), p. 33-34,
who detects in
these words a
probable disguise
for
personal patronage
in Athens.
39
Ibid., p.
35-36. Cf.
THEOPHR., Char., 29,
5.
This content downloaded from 181.47.45.65 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:17:55 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DID PATRONAGE EXIST IN CLASSICAL ATHENS? 79
Nic.,
1124b 31
-
1125a
l)40.
The
vocabulary
of
philia conveyed
the exact nature of
interpersonal
relations. Side
by
side with the
ideology
of
philia
, however,
there
existed the
ideology
of eleutheria
,
of
being
self-sufficient and not
dependent
on
others41.
Dependence
contradicted the notion of
equality
in
democracy,
while
philia-
relations had the
appearances
of
equality42.
That is
why
kolakeia was seen as
slavery,
and
private prostasia
as
relating only
to metics. No Athenian citizen would have
defined himself
willingly
as a kola)
t,
or admit to
having
a
prostates.
Thus,
creating
relations of
philia
with influential and famous
citizens,
and
paying
them
respect
and
charis could be considered as
acceptable
behavior and
prudent policy (which
Plutarch
attributes to
Phocion),
or as
working
for
wages
for
superior
citizens and
flattering
them
(the reproach
leveled at
Archedemus,
or the
description
of
Ergocles
and
Philocrates
by
the
speaker
in
Lys.,
28, 4).
Philia was sometimes a
euphemism
for
relations of
dependence, arising
from the
unequal
nature of the
relationship.
This is
also true of the
Romans,
who used the
language
of amicitia
,
friendship,
as a
polite
disguise
for
patron-client
relations and used their clients to obtain
magistracies
and
political power43.
As we have
seen,
patronage
is defined as
personal
relations between two
unequal parties involving
an
exchange
of services over time.
Hence,
Greek
philia
corresponds
to this definition in three of its
components
-
personal
relations,
inequality,
and the
exchange
of services. As for
duration,
such
philia
was seen as
temporary,
or at least as
something
determined
by
the duration of mutual interests.
Admittedly, philia required loyalty,
as demonstrated
by
Phocion's behavior towards
his
philos
'
relatives,
or
Apollodorus' complaint
about his
philos
'
lack of charis.
Loyalty,
however,
was not
something
that could be
depended upon
in the case of
philia
motivated
by practical
needs,
as Crito was well aware and as Athenian
politicians
who fell out of the demos' favor learnt to their cost.
In
conclusion,
interpersonal
relations between
unequal parties,
similar to the
Roman
system
of
patron-client
relations and to the modern
sociological
model of
patronage,
were a central feature of Athenian
society
in the classical
period.
These
relations differed from the Roman
system
in three
aspects:
the Greeks did not have a
distinctive
vocabulary
to describe these
relations;
they
did not establish
by
law the
obligations expected
from the
parties
to these
relations;
and these relations were of a
shifting
nature.
Otherwise,
these
relations,
defined
by
the
wide-ranged meanings
of
philia ,
had all the characteristics of
patronage.
Even in democratic
Athens,
these
40
Cf.
Eur., Suppl., 871-877; Xen., Mem., II, 8, 4; Arist., Rhet.,
1367 a 32
(about
Sparta);
Pol.,
1337b 19-21.
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.,
1158b 28. See also C.
Moss, galit dmocratique
et
ingalits
sociales. Le dbat Athnes au IVme sicle
,
in Mtis
, 2,
1
(1987), p.
165-176;
Gallant, op.
cit.
(1991,
n.
1), p.
145-153,
on the social
image
of
equality,
which
conceals
inequality
in
practice.
43
See M.
Gelzer,
The Roman
Nobility.
Translated from German
by
R.
Seager,
Oxford,
1969
[Leipzig, 1912], p.
54-69;
R.P. S
aller,
Personal
Patronage
under the
Early
Empire , Cambridge,
1982,
p.
8-39.
This content downloaded from 181.47.45.65 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:17:55 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
80 R. ZELNICK-ABRAMOVrrZ
relations coexisted with the democratic
ideology
and were harnessed to its
purposes44.
Athenian citizens used the
vocabulary
and the rules of
philia
both in the
private
and
the
public spheres.
In other
words,
their relations
transcended,
when
necessary,
the
fine line that
distinguished
the individual as a
private
man from the individual as a
citizen45.
Thus,
if we define a social institution as a norm of behavior whose rules
and
vocabulary
are
accepted by
and known to
every
member of the
community,
and
which affects the life of the members of the
community,
then
philia ,
in all its
aspects
and
expressions,
can indeed be seen as a Greek social institution.
University of
Tel-Aviv
Department of
Classics
Ramat-Aviv 69978
Isral
Rachel ZELNICK-ABRAMOVTTZ
44
Cf.
Moss,
loc. cit.
(n. 1), p.
147-150,
who detects
private
relations of
patronage
and clientela in the
functioning
of Athenian
democracy
in the fourth
century
B.C., by analyzing
the relations between
politicians.
4!)
See
Hansen, op.
cit.
(n. 27), p. 79-80,
who notes that 'the Athenians
distinguished
between the individual as a
private person
and the individual as a citizen
rather than between the individual and the state*.
Likewise,
Crito tried to remain a
private
individual,
but the
sykophants compelled
him to act as an individual
citizen,
a
polites.
This content downloaded from 181.47.45.65 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:17:55 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions