8
23. Pericles’ funeral speech: A citizen’s manifesto
In the years of the pentekontaeitia Athens became the dominant power of the Greek Aegean. The city was a capital of culture and commerce, which attracted traders, intellectuals, scientists and artists from all over the Mediterranean. Athens of course was a democracy where power belonged to the people; yet, the city seemed to have lived its time of maximum splendour under the towering leadership of one individual, Pericles, son of Xanthippus, the political heir of Ephialtes, and the continuator of his democratizing policies.
Pericles held the strategia almost without solution of continuity between 443 and 429. In the winter of 430/429, a few months before succumbing to the epidemic which had broken out in the city, Pericles was called to deliver the traditional speech in honour of the Athenians who had died in battle in the course of the previous year. This speech was the central moment of the public funeral for the fallen soldiers which was held every year at the cemetery of the Ceramicus. This was one of the most important and solemn events in the city’s calendar and had a central significance in shaping the identity of the Athenian citizens. Thucydides marks this by giving a brief account of how the ceremony unfolded.
According to French scholar Nicole Loraux, the funeral speech (epitaphios logos) was a unique rhetorical genre of the democratic polis, and was meant to express a dual political and cultural hegemony: on the one hand the supremacy of Athens over the rest of the Greek world, and on the other that of the demos over the whole of the Athenian citizen body. Pericles’ funeral speech as reported by Thucydides is one of only six such texts extant. The content of these speeches reflects the solemnity of the occasion and generally focuses on the glorious past of the city and the noble deeds of the ancestors. Pericles, as he warns his audience, intends to follow a slightly different path by celebrating the sacrifice of the Athenian soldiers through a eulogy of the city’s national character and the democratic constitution, which is the most original product of the Athenian genius, and a model for other Greek states to follow. Contrary to modern interpretations of democracy as a universal value, Pericles is adamant in linking the development of the Athenian democratic constitution with the specific character of the history and social and even ethnic identity of the city. Democratic Athens is great because it is different from all the other poleis. In this speech, Pericles famously says that the Athenian constitution is called demokratía because power is in the hands of the many, not the few. Even in the celebratory context of the funeral speech, therefore, the orator does not deny the fact that popular government implies the rule of one specific section of the population. The Athens described by Pericles is a well-balanced community of responsible citizens, who are willing to take part in the government of the polis and to defend it with the utmost bravery whenever needed. In Athens the laws apply equally to all, and citizens are rewarded on merit. Although the Athenians were proud of the purity of their lineage, they had turned their triumphant city into a cosmopolitan metropolis where one could experience the best that the world produced. Also, the democratic constitution allowed a good balance between the public duties of a citizen and the sphere of his private life: unlike the Spartans, the Athenians did not live under a constant state of military training, nor was service to the state the only horizon of their lives. This however did not make them less valiant soldiers, rather the opposite, for the military valour of the Athenian soldiers stems from their natural bravery, combined with their inventiveness and sense of freedom.
Thuc. 2.34–42.1: Athens, the school of Greece
In the same winter the Athenians, following the custom of their ancestors, celebrated at public expense the funeral ceremony of the first who had fallen in the course of this conflict, in the following manner. A tent is erected, and the bones of the fallen lie in state there for three days before the ceremony, and the people bring to their dead any offerings they wish. On the day of the funeral procession, coffins of cypress wood are carried on wagons, one for each tribe, and the bones of each soldier are placed in the coffin of his tribe. One empty bier decorated with crowns is also carried in the procession in remembrance of the missing whose bodies could not be recovered. Anybody who wishes to do so can join in the procession, citizens as well as foreigners, and the female relatives of the deceased soldiers are also present and mourn on the coffins. The bones are laid in the public mausoleum, which is located in the most beautiful suburb of the town. This is the place where the Athenians have always buried the men who fell in war, except those who died at Marathon, whom they buried in the site of the battle as a reward for their outstanding virtue. Once the corpses have been laid in the earth, a man selected by the citizens on account of his wisdom and reputation delivers a speech in honour of the fallen, as the occasion demands, and after the speech all depart.
This is how they celebrate the funeral: even in the course of this conflict, whenever the time came, they have kept to this custom. Pericles, son of Xanthippus, was selected to deliver the speech in honour of the first who had fallen in the course of this war. When the prescribed time came, he proceeded from the tomb and walked up to a high platform, built in such a manner that the voice of the speaker could be heard by as many of the crowd as possible. Then he spoke these words:
‘Many of those who have spoken here in the past praised the man who made this speech part of our laws, for it is good to honour those who fell in war with a public eulogy. As for myself, I am of the opinion that, since these men have shown their bravery in deeds, it would be sufficient to honour it by deeds such as those you have witnessed honoured by the state, at this funeral and not to risk the bravery of many men on the words of one speaker who might make it more or less credible according to whether he speaks well or not so well. Indeed, it is difficult to speak with some sense of measure when it is so difficult to establish the truth of what one is saying. For the listener who knows the facts and was a friend of the deceased may think that the speech is inadequate in comparison with his desires and knowledge of the events. On the other hand, someone who is not so well informed, if he hears of actions that go beyond his natural abilities, may be influenced by envy to think that the speaker is exaggerating. Indeed, the eulogies of other men are tolerable only insofar as each of the listeners believes himself able to perform any of the exploits of which he is hearing, but whatever goes beyond that point excites envy and is deemed as unbelievable. However, since this practice has been set up and approved by our forefathers, it is my duty to comply with the law and do my best to satisfy the wishes and beliefs of each one of you.
I shall begin with our ancestors, for it is just and appropriate to honour their memory. They dwelt in this land in unbroken succession, generation after generation, and, by their virtue, they have given into our hands a free country. Indeed, they deserve to be praised, but even more so our fathers who, adding to what they had inherited, built the empire which we now possess, and spared no toil to bequeath it to us who are living today. As for ourselves, who are assembled here, mostly in the prime of our life, we have made this empire even stronger, and have supplied our city with all the necessary resources to support herself in peace as well as in war.
‘The military exploits by which all our possessions were conquered, whether it was ourselves or our fathers who valiantly rebuffed our enemies, barbarian or Greek, I will not recount, for I have no desire to speak at great length of events which are known to you all. But first I want to talk about the sense of pursuit which has led us here, and the character of the constitution which has made us great, and the national customs from which it stemmed. Then I will proceed to the praise of these men: I think that such a speech would be worthy of this occasion and all this audience, citizens and foreigners alike, would benefit from listening to it.
‘We follow a constitution which does not imitate the laws of our neighbours, but we are rather a model for others to follow. Its name is democracy because power lies in the hands of the many, not the few. Our laws afford equal justice to all in the settlement of their private disputes, but when it comes to reputation, we assign public offices on the basis of personal merit, and no citizen is preferred to another because he belongs to a higher social class, nor is lack of means a barrier from attaining renown and public honours for anyone who can be of service to the city.
‘Not only do we enjoy freedom in the government of our city, we are also free from mutual suspicion in our daily activities; for we don’t feel any resentment if our neighbour does as he pleases, nor do we give him that kind of sour look which might be harmless, but still is a cause of suffering. While we conduct our private life without causing offence to anybody, in public matters we abstain from wrong-doing chiefly through fear. And so we obey the magistrates and the laws, particularly those established to assist the oppressed, and the unwritten norms which, when contravened, give universal shame for the transgressor.
‘Furthermore, we have devised many ways to give our minds repose from the toils of life: we celebrate games and sacrifices throughout the year, and the beauty of our private residence is a delight that drives out our daily worries. The greatness of our city conveys to our city every kind of produce from around the world, and it so happens that the enjoyment of exotic delicacies is as familiar to us as that of the fruits produced by our own country.
‘We are also different from our enemies in our approach to military matters. We keep our city open to the world, and never expel foreigners to prevent them from learning or seeing anything which, when revealed, an enemy might find useful to know. For we place our trust less on deceit and machinations than the bravery of our men on the battlefield. If we turn to education, while our enemies since the earliest age have to undergo the most toilsome training in their pursuit of manly courage, we live a life free from constraints and yet are just as prepared to encounter the dangers of war. And here is the proof: when the Spartans invade our territory, they never come by themselves, but bring all their allies with them. On the other hand, we Athenians march into the territory of our neighbours on our own and with no difficulty prevail upon men who are fighting on their ground to defend their homes. In fact, none of our enemies has ever faced our combined forces yet, owing in part to our naval commitments, but also because on land we engage in a number of different operations. Yet, whenever they happen to engage with a division of our force and attain victory, they boast that they have defeated the whole of the Athenian army, and when they are defeated, they claim to have been defeated by us all. If we are still willing to encounter dangers with our easiness of temper more than toilsome exercise, and with a courage which stems not by the bond of laws but by natural bravery, we have the advantage of not being distressed for dangers which are not yet at hand, but when it comes to face them, we are as brave as those who are always weary with toil.
‘So, our city deserves to be admired in these and other endeavours. For we love beauty without being extravagant, and culture without being weak. Wealth we use more as an opportunity for action than vaunting. And if we attach no dishonour to acknowledging poverty, we find it more shameful to do nothing to escape it. In the same man one might find an equal interest in public as well as private matters, and even those citizens who are mostly concerned with their private businesses, do not lack in knowledge of public affairs. For we are the only ones who consider the man who does not take part in public life not as someone who looks after his business, but as good for nothing. We are able to take political decisions by ourselves or submit them to thorough discussion, for we believe that debate is not an obstacle to action. Rather, we think that careful discussion is an essential preliminary to any wise action. Also, we differ from our enemies on this point: you can find men who are exceptionally ardent in their bravery and at the same time wise in deliberation, while with other people bravery brings about foolishness, and reflection hesitancy. But the men who can be easily considered the bravest are those who can best recognize the difference between pain and pleasure without turning away from danger. Again, we see virtue in a different way than most people, for we acquire our friends by doing good to them, not by receiving it. In fact, the giving man makes the stronger friend, because it is by continuing to show his goodwill that he keeps alive gratitude in him. On the contrary, a man who owes you something makes a duller friend, because he knows that whenever he repays your generosity, that will be the repayment of a debt, and not a spontaneous act of amity. For we alone render service to others in a spirit of full liberality, without thinking about what is in store for us.
‘In a word, I say that our city is a school for Greece, and that, as it seems to me, each of us, with the greatest ease and versatility, could prove to be the perfect master of himself in the most various cases of life. And this is not just empty boasting for the present occasion. This is nothing but the truth, as the power of our city is there to demonstrate: a power that we have acquired in reason of these very virtues. For Athens alone, when its valour is put to the test, comes out to be superior to her own fame. Athens alone never gives cause of shame to her assailants, because they have been defeated by unworthy enemies, or to her subjects, because they are ruled by unworthy masters. We have left many monuments testifying the greatness of our empire; present and future generations will look in amazement at our achievements. We do not need a Homer to sing the praise of our city, or any other poets whose verses might delight us for the moment, but whose version of events is bound to be contradicted by reality. Our daring spirit has granted us access to every sea and every land, and we have set up everlasting memorials of the good we have done to our friends and of the pain caused to our enemies. It is a city of this kind that these men strove to defend, this is the kind of city for which they have valiantly fought and died. It is therefore befitting that all those who have been left behind should be prepared to endure pain on its behalf.
‘For this reason I have talked for so long about our city: to make it clear that, in this war, we are not contending for the same prize as those who do not partake in these privileges as much as we do, and to give to my eulogy of these men the clarity which comes from incontrovertible evidence.’
24. Defining and protecting Athenian citizenship
In the course of his career Pericles promoted a number of measures to encourage popular participation in the government of the city. Most notably, he established a salary for a number of public duties, such as service in the jury-courts. The author of the Constitution is very critical of these developments, which are blamed on Pericles’ need to find a countermeasure to the lavish personal expenditures with which his political rival Cimon tried to buy popular consensus. This, however, ultimately resulted in a deterioration of the quality of government [a].
One of the most notable effects of the international development of Athens was the steady growth of the foreign population residing in the city. This was to cause some serious problems, particularly as concerned citizenship entitlements: a more diverse city meant an increasing number of mixed marriages. Athenian citizenship was certainly a valuable asset and we might suppose that a number of people tried to obtain it even though they were not qualified. All this called for a more precise definition of Athenian citizenship, and in 451/450 a law was passed under Pericles’ proposal establishing that citizenship was limited to those of legitimate Athenian birth on both father’s and mother’s side [b]. The destruction or alteration, either accidental or deliberate, of the citizens’ registers was not an uncommon issue in ancient Athens, often resulting in court actions. More than one century after Pericles’ citizenship law, in 346/345, a scrutiny for applicants to citizenship was formally instituted under the proposal of a Demophilus [c, d].
[a] [Arist.] Ath. Const. 27.4: Pericles makes the constitution more democratic
When Pericles became the leader of the people, having first distinguished himself when still a young man, he challenged the accounts of Cimon’s generalship, it so happened that the constitution became even more democratic. For Pericles deprived the Areopagus of some of its powers and urged the city towards naval power. As a consequence of this, the populace became bolder, and brought all affairs of government into their own hands. Forty-eight years after the naval battle of Salamis, in the archonship of Pythodorus, the war against the Peloponnesians broke out. In the course of that conflict the people remained locked up in the city, and became accustomed to receiving their wages by serving in military campaigns, and so they came, at the same time by and against their will, to take charge of the government of the city. Pericles was also the first to establish a wage for service in the jury-courts. This he did in response to the populist lavishness of Cimon, for the latter owned an estate which was large enough for a tyrant, and could afford to discharge public services with great splendour. On top of that, Cimon maintained many of his fellow-demesmen, for any of the Laciadae who so wished was allowed to come to his house every day and get a moderate supply of what he needed. Also, his estates were left unfenced, so that anybody who liked could enjoy the fruits of the harvest. Now, since Pericles’ fortune could not match such lavishness, he followed the advice of Damonides of Oea (who was believed to have inspired most of Pericles’ measures, for which reason he was later ostracized): since his personal resources were inferior to Cimon’s, Pericles should give the people what belonged to them, and so he instituted payment for service in the jury-courts, which according to some resulted in their decadence, because the common people were always more eager to cast their lot for this office than the men of reputation.
[b] [Arist.] Ath. Const. 26.3: Pericles’ citizenship law of 451/450
In the archonship of Antidotus, due to the large number of citizens, the Athenians approved the proposal of Pericles, to the effect that only those of Athenian birth on both sides could partake of citizenship.
[c] Dion. Isaeus 16: The citizenship scrutiny, I
The Athenians passed a law that the scrutiny of the registered citizens was the responsibility of the demes, and anyone who had been rejected by the vote of his fellow-demesmen should not partake of the right of citizenship, but those who had been unjustly rejected could appeal against his fellow-demesmen, but if they were rejected again, they could be sold as slaves and their property confiscated.
Aes., C. Tim. 77–8: The citizenship scrutiny, II
Ballots have been taking place in the demes, and each of us had to vote on his person whether he was an Athenian citizen or not. Now, whenever I attend the law-courts, I notice that the same argument always carries the day with you: when the prosecutor says, ‘gentlemen of the jury, the demesmen have under oath excluded this man. Nobody has brought a formal accusation or given testimony under him, but everybody knew that he is not a legitimate citizen’. At this point you all applaud, because the defendant has no claim to citizenship. For, I think, you assume that when someone knows something perfectly well on his own knowledge, he does not need corroborate his case with evidence or testimony.
25. Athenian democracy: An exclusive community, the ephebic oath
Pericles made Athens more democratic and cosmopolitan, but his citizenship law did not modify the exclusive nature of polis membership. Athens, like any other Greek city-state, was a close-knit community whose membership was primarily defined by birth and kinship [a].
The accession of young Athenians to the duties and entitlements of full citizenship was marked by a series of civic-religious ceremonies and rituals. At the end of his eight–tenth year of age, the young Athenian lad was officially registered as a citizen at his deme. The procedure was rather complex and involved a public scrutiny of the candidate’s age and legitimacy. On successful completion of the scrutiny, the new citizen underwent a two-year period of military training, called ephebia. The coming of age was marked by a solemn ceremony at the temple of Aglaurus, located near the acropolis. Aglaurus was the patriotic daughter of the mythical king Cecrops, who, as Athens was embroiled in a long war, decided in compliance with an oracle to sacrifice her own life to bring peace to her city [b]. The Athenians honoured the memory of Aglaurus with the erection of a shrine, where the young Athenians solemnly swore to defend and aggrandize the city [c]. The text of the oath of the ephebi is known from a number of literary sources and an epigraphic monument datable to 334/333 or later. The oath puts across a very conservative image of a citizen’s duties, still based on the ethics of hoplitism.
[a] [Arist.] Ath. Const. 42.1–2: Control and scrutiny of Athenian citizenship
Only those who are of citizen birth on both sides can partake of citizenship; at the age of eighteen they are registered in the roll of their deme. At the act of their registration, their fellow-demesmen take a vote on them under oath. Firstly they vote on whether they have reached the legal age, and if they have not, they return to the rank of boys. Secondly, whether they are freeborn of legitimate birth. Then, if the vote goes against the candidate, he can appeal to the jury-courts and the demesmen appoint five of them to plead against him, and if it appears that he has been rightfully denied the registration, the city sells him as a slave. If he wins, the demesmen are required to register him. After this, the council revises the lists of those who have been registered, and if anyone is found to be under eighteen years of age, they impose a fine on the demesmen who have registered him. Once the list of the ephebi have undergone this revision, their fathers hold meetings by tribes and elect three men over forty years of age from their tribe, whom they consider best suited to take care of the ephebi. From these, the assembly elect by show of hands one man for each tribe to serve as disciplinary supervisor, and appoint one citizen from all the other Athenians to serve as their director.
[b] Lyc. Ag. Leoc. 76: Perjury at the ephebic oath
There is an oath which all citizens are required to take when they are enrolled in the register of their deme as ephebi: not to bring shame to your sacred arms, not to desert your place in the line, but to defend your fatherland and to hand it over better than he found it. If Leocrates has sworn this oath, then he is clearly guilty of perjury, and not only has he injured you, but he has also committed sacrilege towards the gods. If he has not sworn it, then it is clear that he has intrigued to avoid his duty, and for this reason you would be right to punish him on behalf of yourselves and the gods. Clerk, please, read the oath:
‘I shall never bring shame to the sacred arms, nor shall I desert the man beside me, wherever I stand in the deployment. I shall defend the rights of gods and men, and when I die, I shall not leave the fatherland smaller, but greater and better both to the best of my own abilities and with the help of all. I shall duly obey the magistrates in charge, and the laws currently in force and any law which may be established in future. If anyone intends to destroy the laws I shall oppose him to the best of my own abilities and with the help of all. I shall honour the ancestral cults. My witnesses shall be the gods Agraulus, Hestia, Enyo, Enyalius, Ares, Athena the Warrior, Zeus, Thallo, Auxo, Hegemone, Heracles, and the borders of my native land, wheat, barley, vines, olive-trees, fig-trees …’ .
Paus. 1.18.2: The sanctuary of Aglaurus
The shrine of Aglaurus is located below the sanctuary of the Dioscuri. They say that Athena gave Erichthonius, whom she kept hidden in a chest, to Aglaurus and her sisters, Herse and Pandrosus, telling them to abstain from prying into the content of the chest. Pandrosus, they say, obeyed, but the other two opened the chest and went mad when they saw Erichthonius, and threw themselves down from the steepest cliff of the acropolis. This was the place where the Persians climbed and killed the Athenians who thought that they had understood the oracle better than Themistocles and walled off the acropolis with a wooden fence.
26. The duties of a good citizen: Commitment and reward, the liturgy system
The democratic constitution of Athens gave all the citizens the opportunity to make their private affairs prosper. Also, democracy encouraged active participation in the government of the polis from all citizens, regardless of their social rank, and expected the wealthy to give their particular contribution to the life of the community. Healthy competition between those ambitious individuals who were willing to gain renown by looking after the common good was essential to the prosperity of the city. The Athenian system did not provide for any form of regular taxation on the income of citizens. Wealthy citizens contributed to the life of the community through the so-called liturgies. The liturgy was a form of civic duty whereby the richest citizens carried out services of public interest at their own expense. These services ranged from the organization of tragic performances and religious festivals to the fitting of warships. Naturally, the citizens who took charge of these onerous services expected something in return from the city. This is what made the orator Lycurgus say that the liturgies were public services carried out in the private interests of one’s family [a]. A passage from Demosthenes’ speech Against Evergus and Mnesibulus describes the procedure for the assignment of naval liturgies for the equipping of warships [b].
Demosthenes’ speech Against Leptines is an interesting document for the study of the Athenian culture of euergetism. Sometime after 355, as Athens was lingering in near bankruptcy following the disastrous conflict against the allies of the second Athenian league (Social War, 357–355), Leptines had a law passed abolishing a series of privileges, such as exemptions from liturgy duties, which the city often granted to its benefactors and their descendants. The new norm, however, was challenged as unconstitutional (graphe paranomon) by the heirs of the great general Chabrias. The legal issues, however, play a very secondary role in the speech prepared by Demosthenes. According to the orator, the proposal of Leptines in fact would deprive the demos of one of the prerogatives of the demos, namely the authority to reward the benefactors of the city, either Athenian or foreigner, and, by doing so, stimulate competition for the gratitude of the demos [c, d].
Defendants appearing before the Athenian law courts often tried to obtain the sympathy of the jury by listing the liturgies and other public services which they had undertaken [e–g]. If wealthy citizens who took over liturgies enjoyed great popularity, those who did not were the object of great resentment, as hinted at in a passage of Xenophon’s Symposium [h].
[a] Lyc. Ag. Leoc. 139–40: Lycurgus on liturgies
Having performed public services for the advancement of their own families, these people are now asking you for a public token of gratitude. The breeding of horses, a handsome payment for a chorus, and other expensive gestures do not entitle a man to any such recognition from you, since for these acts he alone is crowned, conferring no benefit on others. Instead, if he wants to obtain your gratitude, he should have distinguished himself as a trierarch, or built walls for the protection of his city, or used his money to contribute to the public safety. These are real services to the state, because they make a real difference to the welfare of the whole community and demonstrate the loyalty of the benefactors. While the others reveal nothing but the wealth of those who have spent the money.
[b] [Dem.] Ag. Ev. Mnes. 20–2: The naval liturgies
Charidemus proposed this decree in order that the equipment for the ships might be exacted and kept safe for the benefit of the city. Please read the decree:
When this decree had been passed, the magistrates appointed by lot those who owed the naval equipment to the city, and handed over their names, and the supervisors of the dockyards passed on their names to the triearchs who were then about to sail and to the overseers of the navy-boards.
The law of Periander prescribed and gave order to us to receive the list of those who owed naval equipment to the state. This is the law in accordance with which the navy-boards were established. Also, there is another decree of the assembly compelling them to assign to us the debtors so that we might recover from them his proportionate amount.
Now, I happened to be a triearch and overseer of the navy-board; Demochares of Paeania was also in the navy-board and he owed the state, in conjunction with this man Theophemus, the equipment of a ship, for he had served as a trierarch with him. Accordingly, the names of both of them had been inscribed on the list of those indebted to the city for the naval equipment, and the magistrates, having received their names from those who had served in that office before them, handed them over to us in accordance with the law and the decrees.
[c] Dem. Ag. Lep., 1–5: The importance of honouring benefactors, I
Gentlemen of the jury, I have agreed to plead the case of these men to the best of my possibilities chiefly because I believe that the city will benefit from the repeal of this law, and in part owing to my sympathy for the young son of Chabrias. There is no doubt, men of Athens, that Leptines and anyone else who may speak in defence of this law will have no just argument to support his case. Instead, he will point out the disrepute of some of those who have taken advantage of their exemptions to avoid public services, and this will be his main argument.
As for myself, I will not reply to that by saying that it is unfair to deprive everyone of this privilege because some have abused it, for this point has already been raised, and you certainly know how strong it is. However, I would like to ask Leptines why, if not some, but all those who have received this benefit were utterly unworthy of it, he considers you just as undeserving as them, for with the clause ‘none shall be exempt’ he has deprived of the privilege those who are currently enjoying it, but with the addendum ‘nor shall be lawful hereafter to award it’ he deprives you of the right to bestow this reward. In fact, he cannot certainly mean that, while he judges the recipients of this privilege unworthy of it, so he considers the people unworthy of the right to bestow it upon whomever they wish.
Perhaps, he might object that he framed the law in this way because the populace is easily manipulated. But then, by the same token, why should you not be dispossessed of all your rights, of the whole constitution in fact? You have often been deceived into voting decrees, sometimes you have been misled into choosing weak allies instead of strong. In general I think that the same thing will necessarily happen in many of your public affairs: should we therefore pass a law banning the council and the assembly from deliberating on any matter? I do not think so, because we must not be deprived of our rights, when we have been misled. Instead, we should learn how to avoid such mistakes, and we should pass a law not to deprive us of our own authority, but to punish those who mislead us.
But now you should leave all these things aside and consider the matter at stake, whether it is in your better interest that you should maintain the authority of granting this privilege, even though sometimes you are deceived into granting it to a crook, or that, by being dispossessed of this authority, you should not be able to grant rewards even to those who deserve them. Now, the former course, as you realize, is more profitable. Why? Because widespread rewards result in many being encouraged to do good to you, but if there are no rewards for anybody, the spirit of emulation is dead.
[d] Dem. Ag. Lep. 155: The importance of honouring benefactors, II
The law of Leptines, men of Athens, is unjust not only because it abolishes the rewards of benefactions, thus depriving us of the benefit of having ambitious men striving for honours, but also because it gives our city a shameful fame of illegality. For, as you are certainly aware, the law prescribes one specific penalty for each serious crime. In fact, the law explicitly says that ‘at any trial there should not be more than one assessment of penalty, whatever decided by the court, either a personal punishment or a fine, but not both’. But this man has used a different kind of measure, and if anyone claims a return from you, ‘he shall be disenfranchised, and his property made public’. So, there are two penalties here.
[e] Lys. Corr. 1–6: A man of many liturgies, I
Men of the jury, since you have received an exhaustive account of the accusations against me, I would like to give you some additional information so that you may understand what kind of person I am before you cast your verdict. I was certified of age in the archonship of Theopompus, and having been appointed to produce a tragic drama I spent 30 minae on it. Two months later I spent two thousand drachmae and won the first prize with a male chorus at the Thargelia. In the archonship of Glaucippus I spent eight hundred drachmae for a chorus of pyrrhic dancers for the Great Panathenaea. In the same year I also won the first prize with a male chorus at the Dionysia on which I spent five thousand drachmae, including the dedication of a tripod. In the archonship of Diocles, I spent three hundred drachmae on a cyclic chorus for the Little Panathenaea. In the meantime, I spent six talents on the equipment of triremes over a period of seven years. Although I have sustained all these expenses, and encountered dangers every day as I served abroad on your behalf, I have nevertheless contributed thirty minae and then four thousand drachmae for special levies. As soon as I returned here, in the archonship of Alexias, I spent twelve minae on producing games for the Promethea, and obtained a victory. Later on, I was appointed to produce a chorus of boys and spent more than fifteen minae. In the archonship of Euclides I produced a comedy for Cephisodorus and won the first prize; I spent sixteen minae on it, including the dedication of the scene material. At the Little Panathenaea I spent seven minae on producing a chorus of beardless pyrrhic dancers. I have won a warship race at Cape Sunium, spending fifteen minae. Furthermore, I have been responsible for sacred embassies, ceremonial processions and other such duties, on which I have spent more than thirty minae. Of all the disbursements which I have enumerated, had I limited my public services to what was prescribed by the law, I would have spent less than a quarter.
[f] Lys. Corr. 13–14: A man of many liturgies, II
Gentlemen of the jury, consider the abysmal state of the city’s finances, and how these have been depredated by their appointed guardians: you should therefore consider the fortunes of those who are willing to perform public services as the safest revenue for the city. So, if you are well advised, you should take the utmost care of our property as though it was your own, knowing that you will be able to benefit from all our resources, as you did in the past. Also, I believe that all of you will find in me a far superior controller of my own estate than those who control the treasury of the state on your behalf. On the other hand, if you make me poorer, you will make damage to yourselves, for others will divide up my estate among themselves as they have done with the rest.
[g] Lys[ias]. Aristoph. 60–2: A family of benefactors
Now, there have been aspects of my father’s life which have not been beyond blame, but when it comes to money, nobody has ever dared to reproach him, not even his enemies. Therefore, it is not fair to give more consideration to the words of our accusers than the deeds of his life, or time, which you should consider the most reliable witness of truth. Had he not been the man that he was, he would not have left but a small portion of his large estate, and now, if you were deceived by these men and confiscated our property, you would not get as much as two talents. It would be therefore more profitable for you to acquit us, not only as reputation is concerned, but also money, for you will derive a higher advantage if we keep our estate.
Consider, as you consider the time that is past, all the money which appears to have been spent on behalf of the city. Right now I am equipping a warship from what remains of my wealth, my father was equipping one when he died, and I will try to do what I saw him doing, and raise, by degrees, some small amount to be spent on public services. My money therefore continues to be the property of the state, and while I will not think that I have been damaged for having been deprived of it, you will have in this way more benefits than you would obtain by confiscating it.
[h] Xen[ophon]. Symp. 4.45: The burden of public offices
‘Oh Hera!’ commented Callias, ‘there are many reasons why I must congratulate you on your wealth, one is that the city does not give you orders, as though you were its slave, another is that the populace doesn’t get angry at you when you don’t make them a loan.’