DF 
 

 
 
 
 ■^ ^ o , k'* A . ■^ ' / „ . s "^ \0 <- 
 
 ^0 ^4, 
 
 
 
 a\ . O ^i <■ « 
 
 

 -^-^■^ 
 
 
 
 ■f^ 
 
 x^^^. 
 
 
 
 A^ 
 
 o>- 
 
 ^> 
 
 ^^ 
 
 '% V 
 x^^^-. 
 
 
 .\^ 
 
 '^iv. 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 S 
 
 %> '^^ 
 
 \' 
 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 •^o^ 
 
 
 
 v^^" 
 
 
 
 t ^'f' 
 
 
 "•n^,"' 
 
 
 
 
 ■"^Q^ 
 
 . * . N ^ ^0 . « %. * » ' 
 
 •Or. C. ' *■ JH\ K» /n. -, ^,f> .JyV 
 
 ^-. .,^^ 
 
 ...^^^ 
 
 
 * 8 I T ' 
 
 
 .'-^^ 
 
 O- '- 
 
 '. ,^^ 
 
 
 ^^\..yr^^''^ -e. 
 
 >0^ 
 
 
 
 c--^^" 
 
 ^.^' 
 
 
Qlil^ Itittt^rstly of QHytragn 
 
 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 A DISSERTATION 
 
 SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY 
 
 OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE 
 
 IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF 
 
 DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF GREEK 
 
 BY 
 JOHN OSCAR LOFBERG 
 
 Private Edition, Distributed By 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LIBRARIES 
 
 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 
 
 1917 
 

 tEtije Collcgfate Preso 
 
 George Banta Publishing Cohpa.v 
 Menasha, Wisconsin 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The investigation of this subject was suggested to me by Professor 
 Robert J. Bonner, of the University of Chicago, while I was attending 
 his course in the Private Orations of Demosthenes. To his advice and 
 invaluable criticism the work owes the larger part of such value as it has. 
 
 J. O. L. 
 
 The University of Texas 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 Page ] 
 
 Introduction vii j 
 
 CHAPTER I I 
 
 The Development of Sycophancy 1 i 
 
 Origin — Growth — Relation to Democracy and the Popular 
 Courts — Prevalence. 
 
 CHAPTER II : 
 
 The Activities AND Methods OF Sycophants 26 ! 
 
 As Litigant — As Blackmailer — As an Agent — Clubs and Com- ' 
 
 binations of Sycophants — Sychophants and the Allies. \ 
 
 CHAPTER III j 
 
 Typical Athenian Sycophants 73 | 
 
 Agoratus — Callimachus — Aristogiton — Theocrines. j 
 
 CHAPTER IV 1 
 
 Checks on Sycophancy 86 1 
 
 Indirect — Fines and partial atimia — kirco^eXia — Paragraphe. i 
 
 Direct — ypa(pfi avKo^pavrias — ei(Tayy\la — wpo^oKr] — Methods i 
 
 employed by the Thirty. i 
 
 Inefficiency of all checks. ! 
 
INTRODUCTORY 
 
 The etymological meaning of <TVKO(pavTeiv has been the subject 
 of speculation from the time of Plutarch to the present day. Plu- 
 tarch's own explanation is that the exportation of figs from Athens 
 was forbidden in early times. Those who reported violations of this 
 law came to be called avKocpdvTai} The same explanation is found 
 in several other comments on the meaning of the term.^ 
 
 An entirely different etymology is also offered by the ancients. 
 The people were once forced by a famine to steal the fruit from the 
 Sacred Fig Trees. This was an act of great sacrilege. Those who 
 reported the guilty received the name of <tvko(p&ut at^. 
 
 Modern efforts at reaching a satisfactory explanation are inter- 
 esting. 
 
 Boeckh assumes that the term is equivalent to saying, "to make a 
 ^Ao-is of as little consequence as a fig." In other words, the term 
 merely implies a groundless charge.* 
 
 Sittl explains it by comparing the term with the French faire la 
 figue and the Italian far la fica. This was an obscene gesture em- 
 ployed by the Greeks. Originally, therefore, the term cvKocpavTrjs 
 meant v^plcttjs,^ 
 
 More recent explanations are those offered by Reinach and 
 Girard. They rival one another in ingeniousness. 
 
 The former^ believes that the origin is similar to that of tepocp&vtrfs. 
 Corresponding to the tepofpavTTjs at Eleusis there was in charge of the 
 Grove of Sacred Fig Trees at Cephisius a (TVKo<pavTr]s. The cult of the 
 Figs was of equal antiquity with that of Wheat at Eleusis. The 
 "elevation" of the fig was V acte final of this cult. An essential act 
 of the Mysteries at Eleusis was the Tpopprjcns made by the Upoipavrrfs. 
 This probably led to delations by the initiates as well as to some by the 
 Hierophant himself. The high office of this Priest kept this pro- 
 clamation from being useless. But the <TVKo<pavT7]s in charge of the 
 
 ' Solon 24; De Curiositate 523. 
 
 « Athenaeus III, 74 E; Schol. Plato Rep. 340D; Schol. Ar. Plutus 873; Etym. 
 Magn. s. V. avKo<pavTla. 
 
 ' Schol. Ar. Plutus 31; Suidas s. v. 
 
 Festus (p. 303 Miiller) gives an explanation slightly different from this. 
 He refers to no famine, but merely to theft of figs by young Athenians. 
 
 * Staatsh. der Ath. ed. Frankel I, 56, note b. 
 
 * Gebarden der Griechen und Romer, 103, note 1. 
 
 * Rev. des Etudes Grec. Vol. 19, 342 ff. 
 
Viii SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 worship connected with the Fig Cult had no such awe-inspiring 
 position. His irpopprjais would therefore seem of slight consequence 
 and his delations insignificant. It was but a step from this to the 
 use of the term (TVKO(pavTr}s to indicate a troublesome or vexatious 
 informer. 
 
 Girard^ also accounts for the antiquity of the term by connecting 
 the origin of its use with the theft of Sacred Figs. He assumes 
 that the verbal part of lepoipLvrq^ and avKocpavrvs was originally passive 
 in force. The former then meant "a sacred vision," the latter, 
 6 h rfj (TVKfj aiToipaivbfxevos, applying to one caught (e-Tr' avTo<p6p(a) 
 in the act of stealing figs. This name would stick to the one so 
 detected and tried. Next, the name was extended to those sus- 
 pected of the theft of figs. Those who were suspected would turn 
 about and call their accusers the same. In this way the term came 
 to mean a calumniator and eventually it implied a groundless accu- 
 sation. 
 
 An explanation that the student of the Orators and Aristophanes 
 will feel more satisfactory than any other that has been suggested 
 is that offered by Shadwell, in his commentary on Luke, 3:14,^ His 
 explanation depends on the frequent use of o-etetv as practically a 
 synonym of (jvKOipavretv. "creTo-at koL (TVKO(pavTrj<T at describes the opera- 
 tion of one who shakes fig trees in order to discover the fruit; for by 
 his shaking the fig tree all the ripe figs are made to fall off. When 
 these words are transferred to the business of a,n informer, ceieiv 
 means to agitate a man by threatening to inform against him and 
 (TVKO(pavreiv means to discover his money, i.e., to make him pay a large 
 sum of money in order to escape from the vexation of a lawsuit. 
 Thus a man's money is called his 'figs'; a rich man is said to be 'full 
 of fruit' ; one who bleeds easily is said to be 'ripe' ; and to extort money 
 from a man is called 'plucking his figs.' "^ 
 
 It is in no sense the purpose of this discussion to add a new 
 attempt at etymology or to express unqualified approval of any 
 of those mentioned. Etymologizing may be interesting, but after 
 all it can hardly throw much light on what the Athenian of the time 
 of the orators meant when he used the term. 
 
 ■' Ibid., Vol. 20, 143 ff. 
 
 * Quoted by Kennedy in his article on Sycophant in Smith's Greek and Roman 
 Antiquities. 
 
 'Photius s. V. o-eTo-ai; Aristophanes Knights 324, 259; Mein. Fr. Comic ii. 
 p. 364, 1040 Fr. 20; Antiphon 6:43. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS IX 
 
 A satisfactory definition of the term is as elusive as the ety- 
 mology. More or less epigrammatic descriptions are found in the 
 orators. "For this it is to be a pettifogger {(xvKo<pavTr]s) — to make 
 all kinds of charges, and to prove nothing."^" "Their business is to 
 involve in accusation even those who have done no wrong, for from 
 them they can make the greatest gains. "^^ "By displaying their 
 powers in the case of those who do no wrong, they get more money 
 from those who are clearly guilty of crimes. "^^ "I think that every 
 one knows that those who are clever speakers, and without money, 
 are especially the ones who try to bring vexatious charges against 
 those who have no ability at speaking, but can pay well."^^ 
 
 Definition is difficult because the Greek writers themselves 
 allowed such wide extension in the meaning of the term. In the 
 words of Kennedy, ''the term suggested a happy compound of com- 
 mon barretor, informer, pettifogger, busybody, rogue, liar and 
 slanderer.^* It included calumny and conspiracy, false accusation, 
 malicious prosecution, threats of legal proceedings to extort money, 
 and generally, all abuse of legal process for mischievous or fraudu- 
 lent purposes. "^^ 
 
 It was but natural that, as Aeschines says, the term came to be 
 used for all scoundrels.^^ However, such extension in the use of the 
 term has no part in this study. 
 
 The term (TVKO(pavTr]s was applied, in the limited sense, to the 
 unscrupulous and over litigious person who was ready to enter suit 
 with no other motive than personal gain. It was then naturally 
 extended to any one who collected blackmail by mere threats of a 
 suit. Such a use made it apply equally well to the (X7]vvTi}s, who forced 
 people to pay blackmail by threatening information (ixrjwcns) with no 
 intention of using the courts. 
 
 Non-litigious persons often needed assistance in managing their 
 legal affairs. Such assistance they obtained from \oyoypa(poi. and 
 cvvrjyopoL and others skilled in such matters. Apart from the X070- 
 yp6.(l)os all assistance was supposed to be rendered on the basis of 
 
 " Dem. 57, 34. 
 
 " Lys. 25, 3. 
 
 '2 Isoc. 15, 24. 
 
 "Isoc. 21, 5. 
 
 " Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities s. v. Sycophant. 
 
 ^^ Orations of Demosthenes (Trans.), Vol. Ill, 344. 
 
 " 2. 99. 
 
X SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 friendship or club membership. It was however impossible to enforce 
 these restrictions. The hiring of witnesses as well as avvqyopoi 
 grew to be a very usual thing. To such men the term <TVKO(paPTris 
 was readily applied. The general public would see little, if any, 
 difference between men of this class and others who manipulated 
 the courts for financial profit. Whatever distinction there was would 
 be broken down also by the fact that, generally, men skilled in all 
 forms of legal trickery would be the most desirable assistants. 
 
 Men of the type that could be hired to act as witnesses and 
 advocates, would also be in demand for other kinds of work, more 
 or less closely connected with the courts. The service that they 
 rendered might, in some cases, be in no sense illegal or reprehensible. 
 But the stamp of professionalism affixed to such agents, by their 
 accepting pay for their services, tended to confuse them with the 
 sycophant in the estimation of the public. 
 
 False witness, professional advocacy, information, blackmail, 
 pettifoggery and general roguery were the things connoted by the 
 term (xvKo<pavTr}s.^^ 
 
 Handbooks and Dictionaries of Antiquity contain brief and often 
 extremely satisfactory^^ discussions of the Sycophant. It is, of course, 
 beyond their scope to make a special study of the matter. Such 
 special study was attempted by DeVos.^^ His treatment is also brief^" 
 and differs from the discussions in the Handbooks mainly in that he 
 gives more details concerning one or two well known sycophants. 
 
 His dissertation contains chapters on Sycophanta in Foro, in Vita 
 Familiari, in Vita Publica, inter Socios, Consociationes Sycophantarum, 
 Sycophantae et Demagogi and Sycophantarum coercendorum rationes. 
 The chapter entitled In Foro is largely a paraphrase of the well 
 known passages of the Acharnians dealing with the sycophants in 
 the market. The next two are apparently intended to give an idea 
 of the private and public life of the Sycophant. In Vita Familiari 
 
 " According to the fragment of Theopompus (107), Philip of Macedon 
 considered false witnesses, perjurers, professional advocates and sycophants, 
 as all alike candidates for his proposed City of Correction (TrovrjpdTroKLs) . Vid. 
 p. 94 for fuller statement of this. Cf. Xen. Mem. IV, 4, 11. 
 
 '* Notably Kennedy's treatment already mentioned and Navarre's in 
 Diet, des Antiq. (Darem. et Sag.). The latter's definition will bear quoting: 
 "Delation, escroquerie et chantage, ces trois termes resument assez enactement, 
 comme on le voit, I'industrie complexe du sycophante." 
 
 " De Sycophantis. Amsterdam, 1868. 
 
 '» 75 pp. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS XI 
 
 includes a discussion of the attitude of Sycophants toward rich men, 
 blackmail, Stephanus and his methods of extorting money from the 
 patrons of Neaera, the private career of Aristogiton. In Vita Publica 
 includes some statements on the use of bUri and ypa(pr], and estimates 
 of the amount of money that a sycophant might make by his trade. 
 Inter Socio s and Consociationes are very brief and do not make use 
 of the available material to any great extent. Sycophantae et Dema- 
 gogi is nothing more than an account of the numerous delations at 
 the time of the excitement following the Mutilation of the Hermae. 
 His last chapter is fairly complete and more satisfactory than the 
 others. 
 
 Some of the conclusions and inferences of DeVos are erroneous. 
 But in general the chief fault of the treatment is its incompleteness 
 and inadequacy. He seems to be unfamiliar with some of the best 
 examples and does not make adequate use of those with which he is 
 evidently familiar. It is really a Handbook discussion with some 
 details supplied. And even so it is questionable whether he supplies 
 the details in the proper places.^^ 
 
 There is unquestionably a place for an investigation of this 
 important feature of Athenian public life that shall be more complete 
 and take into consideration the available material on the subject. 
 That is the purpose of the present study. 
 
 " Navarre, in the article just mentioned, does not include this dissertation 
 in his bibliography. 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 The Development of Sycophancy 
 Its Origin 
 
 The lack of a state prosecutor in Athens put on the ordinary 
 citizen the responsibility of prosecuting public as well as private^ 
 offenders. From the Athenian standpoint, no other system would 
 have been "democratic." It was m^erely one of the ways in which 
 each citizen helped to share the duties and responsibilities of the 
 state. Solon is quoted by Plutarch^ as believing that the best 
 governed^ state was the one in which those who were not wronged 
 were no less diligent in prosecuting wrong-doers than those who had 
 personally suffered. To realize this condition he introduced into the 
 Athenian constitution the provision that any citizen might claim 
 legal satisfaction on behalf of anyone who was wronged. '^t6 
 kl^eivai rdo ^ovKonkvco TLfjico [petv] xnrep tO)v aStKovixevc^iV."^ This provision 
 was always regarded as one of the cornerstones of Athenian democ- 
 racy .^ The Athenians were fond of expressing their approval of the 
 men who were vigilant in public activity and who took advantage of 
 the opportunity to bring offenders to justice. Pericles states that they 
 considered the one who refrained from participation in matters of pub- 
 lic interest not inactive {aTpdjfjLoov), but useless (dxpetos).^ Prosecutors 
 often emphasize the important part that such vigilant citizens play in 
 the state. "I consider it the duty of a good citizen to undergo dangers 
 for the democracy and not to keep quiet about public matters from 
 fear of incurring personal enmity."^ "It is the part of a good 
 citizen to consider those that are guilty of some illegality against the 
 state as personal enemies."^ "Of the three important things that 
 preserve the democracy and the state, the greatest is '17 tovtois 
 (the judges) t' aSiKrjfxaTa irapa8L8od(Ta Kpi<ns'."^ 
 
 Plato, a great critic of Athenian democracy, in the Laws pro- 
 vides for the punishment of public offenders by methods like the 
 
 1 Private cases (St/cat) would of course necessarily originate with the person 
 directly affected. 
 
 2 Plut. Sol. 18. Cf. DeVos 3-4 
 ' KaWtcrra oiKelTai,. 
 
 <Arist. ConsLofAth.9. 1; Plut. Solon 18. 
 
 ^ Ari&t. Const, of Ath. 9.1. 
 
 « Thuc. II, 40. 
 
 ^ (And.) 4, 1. 
 
 * Lye. c. Leocr. 6. 
 
 » lUd. 4. 
 
2 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 Athenian in most essentials. "Such causes (public) ought to origi- 
 nate with the people and they ought to have the final decision of 
 them."^*^ "For all are injured when someone injures the state."" 
 "Worthy of honor, too, is he who does no injustice, and of more than 
 two-fold honor if he not only does no injustice himself, but hinders 
 others from doing any; the first may count as one man, the second 
 is worth many men, because he informs the rulers of the injustice of 
 others."^2 
 
 It came to be very customary for prosecutors to attempt to gain 
 favor with the jurors by representing their suits as great benefits 
 to the state. "Since I saw that the city was being greatly harmed, 
 I thought it was one of the most shameful things not to go to the aid 
 of the whole state and the laws and you and myself. "^^ "In aid of 
 my native land and the temples and the laws I have brought this suit 
 as a citizen should, rightly and justly."^* 
 
 But this encouragement of citizens to prosecute public offenders 
 resulted in a serious abuse of the courts. Prosecutors who had 
 only personal motives could take advantage of the freedom in bringing 
 ypaipal as easily as those who were in reality public-spirited. Herein 
 sycophancy had its origin. The situation offered an unscrupulous 
 person excellent opportunities to use the courts as a means of profit, 
 under cover of benefitting the state. This is vividly brought out in 
 the Plutus^^ in the dialogue between Chremylus and the Sycophant. 
 The latter has come to lament the fate that is his, now that the god 
 Plutus has received his sight. The just are prospering and the unjust 
 are reduced to poverty. 
 
 Syc. Alas! What misery it is that I, good and patriotic citizen 
 that I am, should be so mistreated ! 
 
 Chrem. You patriotic and good? 
 
 Syc. As never man was. 
 
 Chrem. Well, tell me — 
 
 Syc. Tell you what? 
 
 Chrem. Are you an honest tiller of the soil? 
 
 " 768 A. (Jowett) 
 " Ibid. 768 A. 
 « Jhid. 730 D. 
 » Aesch. I, 1-2. 
 
 " Lye. c. Leoc. 149, iTroSeSwjca rhv &yupa. The significance of the prefix dir6 is 
 to be noted. He has done his duty to the state. 
 " Ar. Plutus 900 £f. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 3. 
 
 Syc. What do you take me for? 
 
 Chrem. Or a merchant? 
 
 Syc. Oh yes. I pretend to be when it suits my purpose. 
 
 Chrem. Well then. Do you know any trade? 
 
 Syc. No, by Jove. 
 
 Chrem. But how and from what source did you make your living 
 before this, if you don't do anything? 
 
 Syc. I am manager of all affairs of state and private affairs too.^* 
 
 Chrem. You! Why under the sun do you do that? 
 
 Syc. I want to. 
 
 Chrem. How can you be good, you house-breaker, if you make 
 yourself an object of hatred by meddling in things that in no way con- 
 cern you? 
 
 Syc. What? Is it not my concern, you booby, to help my city 
 as far as I can? 
 
 Chrem. Then do you call being a busy-body helping your city? 
 
 Syc. It isn't that at all. It is aiding the established laws and 
 if any one does wrong, not to let it pass." 
 
 Chrem. But doesn't the state appoint judges for just that pur- 
 pose?^^ 
 
 Syc. But who is the accuser? 
 
 Chrem. Any one who pleases (6 l3ov\6fxevos) .^^ 
 
 Syc. Well that's who I am. So that the affairs^" of the state now 
 rest on my shoulders. 
 
 It is clear that the sycophant as well as the legitimate prosecutor 
 would be anxious to have the reputation that the one in the Plvtus 
 claims. It was to his interest also to show that he aided the state 
 and that on him "rested the welfare of his native land." 
 
 This passage from the Plutus shows how difi&cult it is to draw 
 the line of demarcation between the public-spirited, personally dis- 
 interested prosecutor and the sycophant. An excellent opportunity 
 
 ^* TTpayiMara suggests the familiar pun on the word in its double meaning of 
 affairs and law-suits. 
 
 ^' 914—915. ^O'qdeiv toZ's vofiois .... nal firi 'irLTpetreiv, ka.i> Tis o.napTit.vQ. 
 cf. Aesch. 1; 1. fiorjdrjvat . . . rots voiiois k.t.X. and Plato Laws 730 D jutjS' kirt-Tpkivuv 
 Tols aSLKovaip dLSiKeiu quoted above. 
 
 *' This recalls the words of the orator Lycurgus when he refers to the accuser 
 as the most important of the three things that save the state, (c. Leoc. 4). 
 
 '^ The identification of the sycophant with 6 l3ovX6i.i,evos shows us the efifect of 
 the T<3 ^ovKop-kvi^ of Solon's legislation. 
 
 '" Once more the pun on irpaynaTa. 
 
4 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 for comparing the two t)^es of prosecutors is found in the speech 
 of Antiphon On the Choir Boy. Such speeches are of course ex parte 
 and represent the situation in the light most favorable to the speaker. 
 The real facts of the case may therefore be distorted. But the value 
 of the speeches for the present purpose is not impaired for this rea- 
 son. For it is of little interest, after all, whether an individual spea- 
 ker misrepresents the situation or not. On the contrary his state- 
 ments are in fact very illuminating. It would be unthinkable that 
 he ascribed to himself, or accused others of, motives that were un- 
 heard of by the Athenians. In fact, it would be to his interest to 
 represent himself as acting in a natural way, and to accuse his opponent 
 of something reasonably common in Athens. A review of the case 
 will show the difference between the conscientious prosecutor and 
 the sycophant. 
 
 The speaker is a wealthy Athenian who had brought an eisangelia 
 before the Boule against certain officials for theft of public funds. 
 The senate had accepted the eisangelia and handed the case over to 
 the court of the Thesmothetae for trial. After he had brought the 
 eisangelia, and just as he was preparing to prosecute the officials in 
 the court, he was elected to the office of Choregus. Since he was 
 anxious to prosecute the case, he procured some efficient men to 
 take care of the chorus he had collected, and turned the training over 
 to them. Before the trial of the officials, Diodotus, one of the boys 
 in the chorus, died. It was said that his death was due to a draught 
 that had been given him for his voice. ^^ The relatives of the boy did 
 not at first take any action against the choregus or any of his assis- 
 tants. In fact, for two days after the boy's death they talked with 
 him and treated him in such a way that it was evident that they did 
 not hold him responsible.^^ But on the third day, the day on which 
 the boy was buried, this attitude suddenly changed. This was the 
 day preceding the one set for the trial of the first of the eisangelia 
 cases in which the choregus was the prosecutor. On this day Philo- 
 crates, the brother of the dead boy, appeared in the court of the 
 Thesmothetae and announced that the choregus had forced the boy 
 to drink the drug and was responsible for the death.^^ This same 
 court was to sit the next day on the first of the cases.^* Philocrates 
 
 "Ant. 6. 12-16. 
 ^Ubid. 34. 
 ^Uhid. 21; 34; 37. 
 
 ^^Ibid. 21-23. The jurors sat in the same court day after day at this date. 
 Cf. Lipsius Das AUische Recht (A.R.) 137-138. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 5 
 
 had been bribed by the accused officials to make this announcement 
 and to start the prosecution of the choregus.^^ The latter was the 
 only one fully acquainted with their pilfering and if they could get 
 him out of the way so that he could not appear and accuse them, 
 they hoped to go free.^® This accusation made by Philocrates before 
 the court that was to try the cases, right on the eve of the trial, was 
 calculated to prejudice the jurors.^^ Furthermore, if the Basileus 
 would enter the case for trial the choregus would certainly be pro- 
 hibited from public places and would be unable to appear against 
 them. It is clear that the evidence against them was so strong that 
 they had no hopes of acquittal if the prosecutor appeared.^^ As 
 soon as Philocrates had made this accusation in the court of the 
 Thesmothetae, the choregus arose and denounced him because he 
 had taken this informal and illegal way of accusing him before the 
 jurors. He made it clear to the court why it was that Philocrates 
 had done this, and at whose instigation. Then he turned to Philo- 
 crates and challenged him to examine any of those who were 
 acquainted with the facts of the death, slave and free. The chal- 
 lenge was not accepted.^^ 
 
 After his sensational appearance in the court room Philocrates 
 went to the Basileus to get the case entered on the calendar.'^^ But 
 the term of office of the Basileus was so nearly over that he was 
 prevented by law from entering the case.^° No proclamation pro- 
 hibiting the choregus from the public places was made. The explana- 
 tion that he had offered of the reasons for the denunciation that Philo- 
 crates had made probably satisfied the jurors, for the choregus 
 carried the cases of the officials into court as he had planned; and 
 although Philocrates assisted the defendants and made much of the. 
 death of the choir boy, they were convicted and fined.^^ 
 
 After this the relatives of the dead boy did not, as one might 
 expect, bring the matter of his death before the new Basileus who 
 would have no technical reasons for refusing the case, but they let 
 the matter drop. They were very anxious to be reconciled to the 
 
 »Ibid. 21; 34-36. 
 ^Ibid. 21; 36. 
 " 36-37. 
 « 21. 
 »»38. 
 "'38; 42. 
 
 *' That Philocrates and others assisted the officials is clear from the language. 
 "koI oCroi S}v tvtKa k\&tifiavov xpi^M<»^a oiSiv airois olol re ^aau ixpeXfjcrat,." (38) 
 
6 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 choregus and let by-gones be by-gones. At the requests of friends 
 he accepted their offers of reconciliation. For nearly five months 
 these apparently friendly relations existed between the choregus and 
 the relatives of the dead boy. Philocrates himself was especially 
 anxious to show his good will toward him.^^ Then without any 
 warning the relatives, headed by Philocrates, again accused the 
 choregus of the death of the boy. This time the new Basileus entered 
 the case and the choregus was proclaimed as polluted and was pro- 
 hibited from coming into public places.^' He was then brought to 
 trial and the present speech was delivered.^* 
 
 This second accusation, as well as the first was "trumped up." 
 Philocrates and those who assisted him were professional accusers or 
 sycophants.^^ He was not concerned in the prosecution of the one 
 responsible for his brother's death.^^ When someone was ready to 
 pay him to accuse he accused; when there was no one ready with the 
 money he tried to be on friendly terms with the man whom he now 
 accused.^^ This time he had received a "retainer fee" of thirty minae 
 from a second set of ofl&cials that the choregus had begun to prose- 
 cute.^* To account for the failure of his first effort at prosecuting 
 him, Philocrates had stated that the former Basileus was partial to 
 the choregus. The latter shows that this could not be the true 
 explanation: the Basileus had had good reasons for refusing to accept 
 the case; if Philocrates had felt that he had any chance of proving 
 anything against the Basileus he would have appeared at the euthynae 
 and accused him, or in fact merely threatened him with accusation, 
 for his regular business was to levy blackmail upon officials on such 
 occasions.^^ 
 
 Both of these men are active citizens. Each one seems to have 
 devoted his efforts to attacks on officials. But if we accept the 
 version of the choregus, as indeed we must, the difference between the 
 two is vast. It lies in their motives. The choregus is a type of the 
 ideal citizen. He performed his choregic liturgy to the best of his 
 
 '2 38-39. 
 8» 42, 49. 
 
 " 16. For theories on the form of accusation see Lipsius A. R. 125. Cf. 
 Jebb, Atl. Or. Vol. I, 62. 
 « 43, 48. 
 »' 44-45. 
 "48. 
 »49. 
 •» 43. ?<r«e Kal kavKoip&vTei. The expressive word atlu recalls our " shake down." 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 7 
 
 ability. He did not let his wealth keep him from participation in 
 matters of public welfare. In the interest of the state he prosecuted 
 at least two sets of ofl&cials. For these efforts his only compensation 
 was the satisfaction of correcting flagrant wrongs. 
 
 Philocrates on the other hand had no such motives for his activi- 
 ties in the courts. Instead of bringing to justice the wrong doers 
 by prosecutions, he made a business of extorting money from officials 
 by threatening them with prosecutions when they were to render 
 account of their office. "Falsely accusing magistrates and accepting 
 hush-money" can only mean blackmail. There is no indication 
 that he was sufficiently interested in establishing justice to carry 
 through a trial against officials who deserved punishment. No doubt 
 the only motive that he would have for doing that, would be the 
 desire to gain a reputation that would make him dreaded and there- 
 fore render his threats more fruitful of gain. He even allowed him- 
 self to be used as a hireling for the prosecution of the choregus. The 
 very fact that he was chosen by the accused officials as a suitable 
 tool shows that he was well known as a sycophant. 
 
 Such a man as Philocrates might of course indirectly be the source 
 of some good to the state. Many might be kept from wrongdoing 
 by the fear that these men engendered, and offenders might some- 
 times be brought to account by their prosecutions. In fact, the 
 Athenians were in a sense reconciled to the sycophant as an inevit- 
 able nuisance. But the evil of sycophancy lay in the fact that it 
 offered an unscrupulous individual the opportunity of preying on 
 honest men by threats of accusation and blackmail. The sycophant 
 was not concerned in anything but his own financial interest and 
 must have been the cause of more harm than good. This naturally 
 made "informers" an object of hatred even in Athens. 
 
 The Growth of Sycophancy 
 It is evident that the origin of sycophancy is to be found in the 
 lack of a publicly-appointed prosecutor and in the freedom with which 
 7pa0at could be brought. But it could not have been a serious evil 
 until the supremacy of the popular courts was assured^" under the 
 full democracy that followed the period of the Persian Wars. 
 
 *" Cf. the development of sycophancy in Sicily after the overthrow of the 
 tyrants and the establishment of democracies (Diod. XI, 87, 5.). The idea is 
 well worded by the chorus of jurors in Ar. Wasps 1091; 1094-7 ob yd.p ^v . . . 
 ovdk (TVKotpavTTiaeiv tipA, tppoprls. 
 
8 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 These courts had their beginning in the Solonian constitution. 
 Appeals from the judgment of magistrates whose decision heretofore 
 had been final were allowed to be brought before a biKaarripiov to 
 which all citizens were eligible.^^ The natural result of this was that 
 the decisions of magistrates came to be considered of very slight 
 importance. And in the course of time the popular body received 
 the right to try cases first and finally. The process that led to this 
 was no doubt very gradual. It is natural to connect the last step 
 with the reforms of Cleisthenes, who, even in antiquity, was regarded 
 as the real founder of Athenian democracy. ^^ It is hardly likely that 
 any complete use was made of these courts until after the long struggle 
 that terminated in the complete overthrow of the power of the 
 Areopagus.^^ But as Aristotle says "when the Demus became 
 master of the \{/yj(pos, it was master of the state. "*^ When one con- 
 siders the various things that came under the supervision of the 
 courts, it becomes clear how true this was. Many other duties 
 besides the ordinary public and private suits helped to increase their 
 importance. They were called upon to decide the question of the 
 legality of laws and decrees. Eisangeliae which were brought before 
 the ecclesia or Boule might be transferred to the courts for trial. 
 The courts exercised final jurisdiction in the matter of dokimasiae 
 and euthynae and, consequently, magistrates were under their 
 control.'*^ The development of the Athenian empire also added to 
 
 DeVos (p. 4) implies that in early times abuses of the provision were met 
 variis modis. What these were he does not state. It is improbable that 
 any were needed. Abuses could hardly have amounted to much until after the 
 Persian Wars. 
 
 "Arist. Const, of Athens. 7.3; Plut. Solon 18; Arist. Polit. 1274 A. Lipsius 
 A. R. 2S fE. It is a matter of dispute whether Solon at once divided the body of 
 jurors into sections. Aristotle's language is ambiguous, 7, 3 diKaarrjpiuu, 9, 2 
 SiKaffTripiov. It is more probable that the whole body of Athenians acted as a 
 jury at first and that as such the term biKaarijpLov or 'HXiaia (Lys. 10, 16) was 
 applied to them, to distinguish this function from their duties as legislators. Cf. 
 Gilbert Const. Antiquit. (Eng.) 393, De Sanctis, Storia delta Republica Atheniese, 
 p. 250. KeU, Einieltung in die Altertumswissenschaft, III, 362 (1st ed.). Bonner, 
 CI. Phil. VIII, 2. 
 
 « Lipsius, A. R. 32-33; Aristot. Const. Athens. 24, 3. 
 
 *^ Const, of Athens 23-24. Lipsius A. R. 34. 
 
 **Ibid. 9.1; Plut. Solon 18. 
 
 « It is natural to regard the right to examine oflBcials as originally belonging 
 to the Areopagus. Cf. Const, of Athens. 8. 2. Lipsius {A. R. 37) suggests that 
 the conduct of these two examinations was given to the courts (dicasteries) about 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 9 
 
 their prestige. Many of the law suits of the subject states could 
 be tried only at Athens,^^ The great commercial development 
 of the city entailed an immense amount of litigation. The con- 
 gestion of business of all kinds in Athens at this period is well des- 
 cribed in the Xenophontic Politeia. "A man could not get his 
 business attended to even if he stayed in the city a year. And no 
 wonder. No state ever had so many things to manage. Festivals 
 more in number than any other Greek state had; matters of war, 
 finance, legislation, taxes, shipyards, temples. Then the business 
 of the courts. Innumerable 5tKai, ypa<pal, evdwaL, SoKiixaaLaL, 8iakKa- 
 alai. More than all the other states together could settle."*^ "You 
 Athenians do nothing but try cases," says Trygaeus in the Peace.*^ 
 And the exaggeration is but slight. Litigation was the distinguishing 
 mark of Athens. Strepsiades in the Clouds refuses to believe that a 
 certain place on the map is Athens because "he sees no law courts 
 sitting."''9 
 
 This situation rendered pay for jurors necessary. It was impos- 
 sible to find enough judges ready to attend the courts day after day 
 without compensation. Pay for the service made it possible for the 
 poorer and more undesirable to act as jurors. The result was that the 
 courts grew to be gatherings of the idle and less competent who 
 enjoyed the flattering respect of the litigants and the sense of impor- 
 tance that their authority gave them.^^ The \f/r](pos of the juror was 
 the mightiest thing in the state^"^ and the members of the dicasteries 
 could truthfully say with Philocleon "We are lords of all."^^ Jurors 
 of this sort were only too ready to encourage litigation. They 
 depended upon it for their income. 
 
 In such a soil the business of the sycophant grew apace. The evdvvai., 
 SoiufiacriaL, daayyeXlai and ypa<pal Tapapofiwv offered as good chances 
 
 the time of Ephialtes and Pericles. For a fuller statement in regard to the 
 courts and these examinations of ofl&cials, see pp. 43 ff . The matter is discussed, 
 with the various views by Lipsius, A. R. 269 ff.; Gilbert, Const. Antiquit. 218 ff. 
 (Eng.). Vid. Arist. Const. Athens 45, 3; 55, 2. 
 
 « (Xen.) Pol. Ath. 1. 16; Busolt, Griechische Geschichte III, 1, 230. 
 
 *'Ibid. Ill, 1-6. 
 
 *8 Ar. Peace 505. 
 
 " Ar. Clotids 207-208. 
 
 «« Arist. Const, of Athens 27, 3; Politics, 1274 a 8; Plut. Per. 9; Plato Gorgias 515 E; 
 cf. Bury Hist, of Greece 349. Isoc. 8, 130. "Those who live on their fees as jurors 
 are grateful for the numerous trials." 
 
 "Lysias 1, 36; Dem. 21, 223. 
 
 "Ar. Wasps 517. 
 
10 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 for blackmail as the ordinary ypacpal. This was especially true of 
 the first two. The case of the Choregus shows what excellent 
 chances there were for activity in the prosecution of officials. 
 
 Sycophancy was the inevitable disease of democracy. In the 
 words of Plutarch "not only as Simonides says 'on every lark must 
 grow a crest' but also in every democracy there must spring up a 
 false accuser. "^^ Of no community could this be more true than of 
 litigious Athens, where the chances of perverting justice were so 
 numerous because of the character of the courts, the very bodies 
 that were intended to maintain justice. 
 
 The Character of the Popular Courts 
 
 The organization of, and procedure in, the popular courts were 
 largely responsible for the ease with which the sycophant plied his 
 trade, and consequently for the great prevalence of the evil. For 
 this reason it seems well to study the character of these courts in some 
 detail at this point. 
 
 One cannot keep too constantly in mind the fact that the Athenian 
 dicasteries were really popular mass meetings in character and not 
 austere judicial bodies. "In Athens cases are tried "kv tQ Stj/jlc^," 
 says the writer of the Xenophontic Politeia."^ This is practically 
 true. The ecclesia was the meeting of the sovereign people for 
 deliberative and legislative purposes. In the SiKaarripLov the same 
 sovereign people exercised judicial powers through their representa- 
 tives the SiKaaTaL^ 
 
 This representative nature of the courts is indicated in various 
 ways. 
 
 (1) By the form of address that litigants often used: c5 'AdrjpaioL, 
 & avSpes 'AdrjvaToL. 
 
 (2) Speakers repeatedly identify the jurors with the whole 
 people. "To enforce these obligations (state services) you empanel 
 
 " Plut. Timol. 37. DeVos (p. 27) and Navarre (in Daremberg and Saglio, 
 Did. des Ant. s. v. Sycophante) understand the statement of Plutarch to mean that 
 Simonides made the comparison between the tufted lark and its crest, and Democ- 
 racy and its sycophant. Bergk (Fr. 68) assigns to Simonides merely the state- 
 ment about the lark. The language of the passage in Plutarch is in favor of 
 Bergk's view, and surely Simonides would have little occasion to mention the evil 
 of Sycophancy. 
 
 » I. 18. 
 
 * De Sanctis, op. cit., p. 250 Keil, op. cit. Ill, 362. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 11 
 
 juries {hKaariipia irX-npovTe) and pass sentence of imprisonment upon 
 the refractory," is the statement of Diodorus in Diodorus et Euctemon 
 vs. Timocrates} He is addressing a court, but as the Greek words 
 indicate, he regards them as a representative gathering of the whole 
 people. 
 
 (3) An action taken by an ecclesia is often referred to as the 
 action of the jurors whom the litigant is addressing. "When you 
 heard this you handed Dioclides over to a court and put him to 
 death," says Andocides to the jurors in the Mysteries.'^ The action 
 of the ecclesia, to which he refers, took place fifteen years before. 
 But this does not prevent the identification of the jurors and the 
 ecclesiasts. Whether the jurors addressed were really present at 
 the meeting of the ecclesia which the speaker has in mind was a 
 matter of no moment. 
 
 This passage from Andocides shows that the courts were in effect 
 committees of the ecclesia, by means of which the people expressed 
 their will in matters that needed judicial action.^ 
 
 (4) The SiKacTal were subject to no doKinaala or eWwai. "xai 
 tout' avvTevdvvoL SpcifjLev rdv 8' aXXcov ovSefii' apxri."^ They were not 
 at all magistrates in the usual sense of the term. 
 
 There was no examination to determine the jurors' fitness to 
 serve. They were elected by lot from the whole body of citizens 
 and the only requirement was that they be thirty years of age or 
 more. None of the things that in our estimation disqualify a man 
 from acting as a juror prevented an Athenian from serving.^ 
 
 He might know all about the case beforehand.^ In fact he might 
 come to the court with his mind made up as to the question of guilt 
 or innocence.^ He might even be a friend or enemy of either of the 
 litigants and might have indicated his attitude^" on the question at 
 
 ' Dem. 24, 92. 
 
 * And. I, 66. Cf. Aesch. I, 82, 85. Dem. 20, 53, 78; 23, 65. 
 
 • "An Athenian Court was the nation in miniature," Wyse, notes on Isaeua 
 IV, 17, 5. 
 
 'Ar. Wasps 587. 
 
 ' Cf. Bonner, Evidence in Athenian Courts, chap. XVII. 
 » (Dem.) 40, 9, 11. 
 » Lys. 6, 54. 
 
 " Aesch. I, 44; Dem. 21, 4, 226. In the case of a trial resulting from a Probole 
 this was more natural. 
 
12 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 issue. Apparently the most desirable juror was the one most 
 familiar with the case.^^ 
 
 During the progress of the case the jurors often expressed their 
 approval or disapproval. Appeals for fair hearing were frequent.^'* 
 The plaintiff in Apollodorus vs. Stephanus relates how on one occa- 
 sion the jurors were so inflamed against him by his opponent's speech, 
 that they drove him from the court without listening to him.^^ This 
 is probably not a typical case. But the disorder among the jurors 
 was pronounced enough to warrant frequent requests of jui) ^opu/Seire." 
 Plato compares the hooting and clapping of the hands in the courts 
 to the behavior of an audience in a theater.^^ Under such circum- 
 stances the litigants naturally interrupted one another with noisy 
 questions and protests.^^ 
 
 To check this turbulent mass meeting was not in the power of 
 the presiding officer. Neither did he have the authority to force a 
 speaker to confine his remarks to the main issue. The result was 
 that a startling amount of all kinds of irrelevant matter was brought 
 into nearly every case. It is true that "a jury could and did freely 
 express its disapproval of the argument used by a speaker or bade him 
 stick to the question at hand."^'' In fact the Heliastic oath provided 
 that the juror vote on the matter at issue.^^ It is not uncommon to 
 find apologies for digressions^^ or assurances that the arguments that 
 appear to be digressions are not really foreign to the subject.^" But 
 the only real restraint on the evidence that was brought into a case 
 was the fear of exciting the resentment of the jurors.^^ 
 
 " Demosthenes regrets that jurors who are to judge the matter over which he 
 is in dispute with his guardians are not familiar with the case (27.1). Plato 
 in the Laws (937A) advises that the juror who is familiar with a case should become 
 a witness and not vote as a juror. This is in accord with his other criticisms of the 
 Athenian court system. 
 
 i^Dem. 23, 1-5; 45, 1. 
 
 i« Dem. 45, 6. 
 
 " Lye. c. Leoc. 52; Hyp. Lycoph. Frag. II; Plat. Apol. 20 DE; Xen. Apol. 14. 
 
 « Laws 876 B. 
 
 " (Dem.) 40, 61; (25, 19) Plato Apol. 27 B; Aeschines (I, 84.) compares the 
 noise and uproar with the behavior before the Areopagus, where even laughter is 
 not permitted. 
 
 " Ant. 5, 90; 5, 8; cf. Bonner, Evidence, Chap. II, p. 16. 
 
 «Dem. 24, 151. 
 
 " (Dem.) 40, 50, 57, 59, 63. 
 
 *" Lye. c. Leoc. 46. 
 
 " Cf. Bonner, Evidence p. 15. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 13 
 
 The irrelevant matters were of many kinds. A man's whole life 
 was open to review.22 The attack on a man's life might be put in 
 general but exceedingly effective terms. "I cannot tell all his bad 
 points since I have not the time."^^ ''His vile deeds are not fit 
 for utterance. "2* " One cannot live in the same house with men of his 
 class. "2^ 
 
 Or else it might be very specific and deal with his moral charac- 
 ter, political career or personal peculiarities.^^ Nor did a man's 
 relatives or friends escape calumny.^^ Even the witnesses or advo- 
 cates of the opponent received their share of the abuse.^^ 
 
 Defamation of opponents is naturally accompanied by a recital 
 of the reasons why the speaker should receive the jurors' favorable 
 consideration. The good qualities, political record, patriotic tem- 
 per, services to the state, of the speaker or his relatives dead or Hving 
 were rehearsed. Reference to good deeds had come to be regarded 
 as necessary.29 Some litigants, in addressing the jurors refer to their 
 faithful performance of certain duties and say "In fact I spent more 
 than I was asked in order that I might stand higher in your esteem 
 and, if I ever became involved in a lawsuit, might have more success 
 in my suit.''^" Even advocates (avvriyopoi) mentioned their services to 
 the state as reasons for obtaining the acquittal of their "cHents."^^ 
 
 Like all popular gatherings the jurors were easily swayed by ap- 
 peals of various kinds.^^ -phey were especially susceptible to those 
 that touched on their prejudices in favor of democracy .^^ It became 
 common therefore for speakers to represent themselves,^* their ances- 
 
 « Dem. 23, 20; 32, 27. Aesch. 1, 196. 
 
 ^ (Dem.) 40, 38. 
 
 '* Aesch. I, 55. 
 
 =» Dem. 39, 57; 36, 8; 25, 32; 20, 13; Aesch. I, 58; (Dem.) 40, 5. 
 
 =«Dem. 45, 63-65; 37, 33, 37-8; 36, 44-45; 39, 16-17; 24, 159; 25, 56-58; 
 And. I, 124. Such things as fast walking, loud talking, unattractive appearance, 
 carrying a cane (Dem. 37, 52; 45, 77), were included in the accusations. On 
 some matters the Athenian massmeeting was more sensitive than the modern. 
 
 " Ant. 5, 79; Dem. 39, 27; 25, 55, 79-80; 24, 200-201; Hyp. IV, 31, 32. 
 
 2« Aesch. I, 55-56, 167, 170; Dem. 45, 47; 24, 136-7; (40, 58 ff.); Lys. 12, 62 ff. 
 
 ^0 Dem. 20, 76; 21, 154; 24, 127; 34, 38; 36, 36-42; 45, 85; 38, 25; And. I, 106. 
 
 '"Lys. 16, 17; 25, 13; Dem. 25, 76. 
 
 '1 Lye. c. Leoc. 139. 
 
 '" Cf. Plato Euthyd. 290 A KriK7)<n% . . . SiKa(TTO)i>. 
 
 '' And. I, 4. 
 
 '* Lys. 16, 12; Ar. Wasps 282-83. 
 
14 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 tors,^^ or the witnesses^® they furnished, as partisans of the demus and 
 belonging to to vnhepop irXrjdos. It was equally natural to picture the 
 opponents as hating democracy,^^ oligarchic in tastes and senti- 
 ments,^^ or even to compare them with tyrants.^^ Since opposition 
 to democracy was synonymous with opposition to the popular 
 courts, it is easy to see what effect such insinuations had on the 
 temper of the jurors.'*" 
 
 Flattery and complimentary remarks about the jurors were 
 exceedingly customary. They were reminded of the glory of the men 
 from whom they are descended ;^^ called "guardians of the laws and 
 the constitution;"^^ they "know how to curb even the most clever 
 men";^3 "such powerful men it is an advantage to have as assistants 
 and friends";^ "their fairness and justice" are admirable.*^ When 
 mistakes of the jurors must be mentioned they were explained, most 
 often, as resulting from "deception."^® 
 
 Appeals to the prejudice and passion of the jurors were common. 
 Defendants are said to put themselves above the laws of the state ;*^ 
 to be trying to rescind what a dicastery once decided;*^ to be insulting 
 the ecclesia and the courts.^^ Or the jurors are warned that their 
 powers are in danger;^" that they have a villain at their mercy ;^^ 
 that god has endeavored to give them "a chance at" the wrong- 
 
 « And. I, 106. 
 
 '« Dem. 21, 96; Plato Apol. 21 A. 
 
 " Ar. Wasps 474-5. Lys. 25, 7. 
 
 '8 Dem. 24, 57, 76, 78, 87, 90, 154, 164. 
 
 39 Cf. At. Wasps 488 ff. And. I, 101. 
 
 "Ar. Wasps All S.; A7^. 
 
 "Lye. c. Leoc. 127, cf. 119, 110. 
 
 « Dem. 24, 2, 37; 21, 92, 224-25. 
 
 « Dem. 39, 14; Hyp. Ill, 23; Ar. Wasps 258. 
 
 "Dem. 45, 85; Ant. I, 22. 
 
 « And. I, 9, 91; Dem. 32, 21-23; Hyp. IV, 33 ff., 36, 38. 
 
 «Dem. 21, 160; 20, 98; 22, 46; (40, 55); Fla.to Laws 938 B; Lye. c. Leoc. 79, 
 139; Ar. Knights 1345; Aesch. I, 93, 117; Dem. 22, 96-97; Cf. Ar. Wasps 900 ff., 
 where Philocleon says of the dog that is to be tried " i^aTrariiaew /x' oUrai." 
 
 " Dem. 35, 54. 
 
 « Ibid. 24, 73. 
 
 "Ibid. 21, 193, 197 ff. 
 
 »» Ibid. 24, 2. 
 
 " Lye. c. Leoc. 91. Dem. 24. 205. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS ' 15 
 
 doer;^2 that they have been wronged and now have an opportunity 
 for vengeance.^' 
 
 The ordinary SiKaaral whose main source of income^* was the 
 Tpuj}^6\ou could not fail to be aroused by appeals that touched their 
 prejudice against rich men.^^ Litigants therefore found it to their 
 interest to represent their opponents as wealthy and themselves as 
 suffering from poverty or at least in moderate circumstances.^^ When 
 men who were undoubtedly wealthy were on trial the plaintiffs often 
 argued that conviction was the jurors' advantage. One man com- 
 plains of the disadvantage under which he labors in being compelled 
 to defend himself at a time when state funds are low.^^ 
 
 Direct requests for pity were so common that the failure to beg for 
 the jurors' compassion was regarded as a sign of antagonism towards 
 the popular courts and their methods.^^ Defendants even wept 
 before the court.^^ Hardened criminals were said to be able to shed 
 tears in court when occasion demanded.^" Introduction of women 
 and children to move the jurors to pity by their pleas and tears was 
 common.^^ Even the advocates were expected to plead for com- 
 passion toward their " clients. "^^ 
 
 One is not justified in concluding that this situation rendered all 
 trials unfair or all decisions unjust. But these irrelevant matters 
 made it extremely difl&cult for the average juror to base his verdict 
 on the real issue as his oath required him to do. In the words of the 
 Xenophontic Socrates "Do you not see that the Athenian dicasteries 
 frequently become enraged and put innocent men to death and 
 frequently acquit those guilty of wrong, moved to pity by their pleas 
 
 «2 Dem. 56, 47; Lye. c. Leoc. 134. 
 
 " Dem. 24, 90; 20, 34; 21, 7-8, 66, 209 ff.; 23, 100; 35, 56. 
 
 "Isoc. 8.130, cf. 7.54. 
 
 «Isoc. 15, 160. 
 
 6« Lye. c. Leoc. 150; Dem. 36, 58; 45, 66 ff.; Hyp. Ill, 32, 35; Dem. 21, 209; 
 27, 53; Dem. 20, 24; Ar. Knights 1360, Wasps 287 ff.; 627-28. 
 
 "Lys. 19, 11. Cf. Ibid. 28,3. 
 
 «8 Plato Apol. 34 C-E. 
 
 ** For instances in which the speakers begged for pity vid. Lye. c. Leoc. 
 150; And. 2, 6-7; Ar. Wasps 556, 564, 967-977; Dem. 21, 213; 38, 19-21; 27, 68. 
 
 '"Dem. 39, 35; 38, 27. "Even rascals like Pantaenetus will weep and 
 lament" (Dem. 37, 48.). 
 
 " Dem. 21, 99, 186; 25, 83-84; Plato Laws 949 A; Ar. Wasps 568 ff.; cf. Plato 
 Apology supra. Aristophanes ridicules this habit very effectively in the Wasps 
 (976) by representing the whelps of the dog that is on trial whining and begging 
 for his life. 
 
 «2 Dem. 21, 83; Lye. c. Leoc. 135; Dem. 36, 57; Dem. 37.48. 
 
16 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 or by their eloquent speeches? "^^ And in the Platonic Apology 
 Socrates assures the jurors that not Meletus or Anytus will convict 
 him if he is convicted, but the envy and slander of the many. That 
 which has convicted many other good men will not fail to convict 
 many others. There is no danger that it will stop in his case.^* 
 
 Criticisms of the courts by contemporary writers were not unu- 
 sual. Plato advocates that the popular courts be given jurisdiction 
 over matters of very slight importance.''^ He suggests a remedy for 
 the evils of the Athenian system by proposing the organization of a 
 "supreme court" the members of which should be subject to dokima- 
 sia and liable for trial if accusation of unjust decision is brought 
 against them.^® This might have been an effective remedy. As it 
 was the jurors were sovereigns and subject to no dokimasia or eu- 
 thynae as magistrates were. 
 
 Isocrates in the Antidosis quotes at length the opinion of a pessi- 
 mistic friend who had tried to dissuade him from a recital of his good 
 deeds before the jurors. "Some of them are so savage because of 
 their envy and poverty, and are so peevishly disposed that they 
 object not to villany but to a good career, and hate not only the most 
 moderate citizens but the best pursuits. This is bad enough. But 
 they even join the side of wrong-doers who are on trial and pardon 
 them while they put to death those whom they envy, if they can."" 
 This is no doubt overdrawn, but the whole Antidosis is full of criti- 
 cisms that are less exaggerated. 
 
 The undue appeals to the passions that are made in the courts 
 are criticised by Aristotle. "For it is not right that an orator should 
 bias the judge by winning him on to anger or pity or jealousy; since 
 that is as absurd as it would be to make a ruler, that one expected 
 to use, crooked."®^ 
 
 The writer of the Xenophontic Politeia characterizes the Atheni- 
 ans in the courts as "concerned in what is just no more than in what 
 is advantageous to them."^^ 
 
 Even the orators give expression to direct criticisms, especially 
 on the use of irrelevant matter. The popular courts are compared 
 
 "Xen. Apology 4. 
 
 " 28 A. 
 
 •' Laws 876 AB. 
 
 «« Ibid. 767 C-E. 
 
 " 15, 142. 
 
 «' Rhet. 1. 
 
 " I, 14. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 17 
 
 with the Areopagus where even laughter is not permitted and where 
 the chances of wandering from the main subject were comparatively 
 slight.'^" "Neither should a man's good deeds save him from con- 
 demnation if guilty, nor his evil deeds apart from the charge against 
 him condemn him if innocent. "^^ 
 
 The plays of Aristophanes''^ teem with criticisms, more or less 
 exaggerated, of the courts. One play, the Wasps, is entirely devoted 
 to a satire of the judicial system. The jurors are represented as 
 wasps ready to fasten their stings of condemnation in the defendants. 
 Litigants are careful not to irritate the wasp nest.''^ stinging is 
 part of their business. ^^ The carefree, irresponsible attitude of the 
 jurors and the whole nature of the court is well caricatured, if not 
 described in Philocleon's eulogy on the jurors' "Happy Life."''^ 
 
 " Then when I have entered the court room, after being entreated 
 and having my anger wiped away, I perform none of all these things 
 that I promised; but I listen to them uttering all their eloquence for 
 an acquittal. Come let me see; what piece of flattery is it not pos- 
 sible for a dicast to hear there? Some lament their poverty, and 
 add ills to their real ones until by grieving they make theirs equal 
 to mine; others tell us stories from the myths, others some joke 
 from Aesop; others again play some funny pranks that I may laugh 
 and lay aside my wrath. . . And if Oeagrus''^ enters court as a defen- 
 dant he does not get oflF until he recites us a passage from the Niobe, 
 the most beautiful that he can find. And if a flute-player gains his 
 suit, as our fee for this he plays a finale for us dicasts, as we leave 
 the court, with his mouth-piece on. . . Do I not hold a great 
 empire and one in no way inferior to that of Zeus, I who have the 
 same title as Zeus? At any rate if we jurors make an uproar" each 
 of the passers-by says 'Lord Zeus, how the court thunders!' " 
 
 Before these popular courts the sycophant had a distinct advan- 
 tage over his victim. Mere accusation against a man was enough to 
 prejudice the jurors, who regarded the whole proceeding from a per- 
 
 'OAesch. 1, 84. 
 
 "Ant. 5, 11. Bonner, Evidence Chap. II. Cf. Dem. 20, 166. 
 
 "^ Aristophanes was by no means an impartial critic of Athenian democratic 
 
 ideals. Vid. p. 18. 
 "399, 1101. 
 'M113, 1121. 
 
 " 559-567; 578-582; 620-625. 
 " A tragic actor. 
 " 622 eopvpTtffcjuev; cf. /xii dopv^eire (Plato ApoL). 
 
18 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 sonal standpoint. Defendants keenly felt that the odds were 
 against them. The plaintiffs who were in no danger could state any- 
 thing they wished, while the defendants in their fear forgot even the 
 good deeds they might mention.''^ Philocleon, who is pictured by 
 Aristophanes as a typical juror, in the trial of the Dog decides against 
 the defendant before both sides are heard ;^^ refuses to believe the 
 defence;^" has come to court with "condemnation in his eye;"^^ 
 hates to realize that he is beginning to feel a little compassion for 
 the defendant ;^^ and finally faints from the shock when he learns 
 that he has, by mistake, acquitted a "man on trial."^^ For such an 
 act he doubts if the gods will forgive him,^ The sycophant as the 
 first speaker, could paint his opponent as bad as he desired. He 
 was familiar with the appeals to which the jurors were most sus- 
 ceptible and could use them to good effect. 
 
 This situation made it relatively easy for the sycophant to levy 
 blackmail. Few of those whom he threatened with prosecution 
 would care to risk trial before this turbulent mass meeting so easily 
 swayed by appeals to passion, prejudice, self-interest, power and pity. 
 
 In spite of the blackness of this picture it must be remembered 
 that the purpose of this section on the nature of the Courts is not to 
 prove that justice was impossible in Athens. That would of course 
 be untrue. It is however necessary to keep in mind the possibilities 
 of the miscarriage of justice. No one would pretend to take all that 
 Aristophanes says in satire of the democracy as representing the 
 actual situation. However, he cannot be very far from the real con- 
 dition. His description usually contains just enough exaggeration 
 to make it humorous. He would be a very poor artist indeed if he 
 misrepresented circumstances in Athens to any great extent. One 
 of the chief reasons for assuming that his criticism, and the biased 
 statements of litigants, are not far from the truth, is the generally 
 accepted contrast between the Areopagus and the other courts. 
 
 The situation has been well described by Wyse.^^ "There is no 
 evidence that the Athenian judges were often bribed or terrorized or 
 
 78 Hyp. I, 8. cf. Ar. Wasps 878. 
 
 " At. Wasps 920. 
 
 «» Ibid. 966. 
 
 «i Ibid. 847-50. 
 
 «2 Ibid. 973. 
 
 " Ibid. 1000. 
 
 ^*Ibid. 1001-2. 
 
 85 Whibley, Comp. to Greek Studies, 3rd ed. 476. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 19 
 
 intentionally dishonest. Neither did the discretion granted them in 
 the absence of a statute become an instrument of oppression. This 
 danger, though real enough, was diminished by the number and repre- 
 sentative character of the judges, who were not likely to treat as 
 criminal, acts tolerated by public opinion. But the speeches of the 
 orators are a convincing proof, if proof be needed, of the vices inherent 
 in such a system. The amount of injustice done cannot now be 
 estimated, but it is sufficient condemnation of the courts, that 
 appeals to passion and political prejudice, insinuating sophistry, and 
 outrageous misrepresentations of law were judged by shrewd and 
 experienced observers suitable means to win a verdict. No devel- 
 opment of law was possible; nothing excited the suspicion and mis- 
 trust of the judges so much as a display of legal subtlety. . . The 
 conclusions of a court were bare afl&rmations or negations, not dis- 
 criminating between law and fact, applicable only to a particular 
 case and based on reasons which were known only to the individual 
 voters, and perhaps not always to them. And these decisions, such 
 as they were, could not bind another court, for in theory and practice 
 the courts were equal and independent, each being a committee of 
 the sovereign people supreme and irresponsible." 
 
 The Prevalence of Sycophancy 
 Indications of the great prevalence of sycophancy are numerous 
 in the plays of Aristophanes. An incident that illustrates very well 
 the omnipresence of the watchful "informer" is found in the Achar- 
 nians} The Megarian has just arranged a trade with Dicaeopolis. 
 Then the sycophant appears with his "(pavw rabl iroKefiLa Kal tre." 
 In utter disgust the Megarian bursts out, "tovt' kKelv\ i/cet TraXiv 
 odevwep apxa rcbv KaKcbv a/juv ecpv." The first two words are enough to 
 describe the situation, "tovt' eKeiv." "There it is." The expected, 
 the dreaded had happened. A subsequent episode in the same 
 play shows the abundance of these men in Athens.^ A Boeotian 
 brings some choice Copaic eels to the market of Dicaeopohs and 
 wants goods in return. Dicaeopolis offers him anchovies and crock- 
 ery. "No. Give me something that we can't get at home." And 
 Dicaeopolis has no doubts about what Athens has and Boeotia has 
 not. At once he replies: "I know just the thing. Bring out a 
 sycophant." 
 
 » 818 ff. 
 » 903-4. 
 
20 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 Aristophanes is fond of playing on the meaning of words that 
 can be connected in sense or etymology with either of the two parts of 
 avKOfpavTeiv. Puns on $d<ns, a legal process much used by sycophants 
 against those who were alleged to have contraband goods in their 
 possession, and the river ^Scrts were particularly effective. One of 
 Dicaeopolis' market rules is kvraWa nrjre avKO(pavTr]s elffiTO} nr]T^ aXXos 
 6o-Tts ^aaiavos ear' apyjp.^ A similar pun occurs in the Birds where 
 Peisthetaerus admits that he is ^aaiavLKos. '' From Phasis" applies 
 exceedingly well to Athens the "land of informations."* 
 
 Numerous also are the puns on words that suggest a resemblance, 
 near or remote, to the substantival part of the term (avKov). In the 
 Wasps Philocleon is trying to get out of his house in order to join his 
 fellow dicasts on their way to court. He is represented as resorting to 
 all sorts of methods. One is to go out of the chimney as "smoke.'* 
 "What kind of smoke?" asks his son. "Figwood" (avKivov) is the an- 
 swer.^ And later on at the trial of the dog it is decided that if he is 
 found guilty he shall receive a "collar of 'fig- wood' " as his punish- 
 ment.^ 
 
 Aristophanes was not the only comic poet who ridiculed the 
 sycophants. Cratinus' "My Lady Bribery of the Fig-sandal" 
 (Acopot a-vKOTeSiXe) was a favorite song at banquets.'' 
 
 ' Achar. 725-6. This has been cleverly translated by Walsh. 
 "Here let no base informer dare to come 
 Nor any other man from Quibbleford." 
 This brings out the pun on Athens as "Quibbletown," and the river Phasis. 
 
 In the Knights (1256), Demosthenes asks the Sausage Seller if he may be his 
 "Phanus" or secretary of indictments. 
 
 *68. 
 
 6 145. 
 
 « 897-8. Cf. Plutus 946, where the sycophant thinks he will feel safe if he 
 finds a companion of "fig wood" (i. e., a dub made of figwood.). As a thrust at 
 the sycophant, Aristophanes evolved one of his best comic compounds. Bde- 
 lucleon {Wasps 505) says that he wants to make his father live the life of a gentle- 
 man and be freed from "these early-rising-base-informing sad litigious plaguy 
 ways," 6p9oipoi.ToavKo<pavTo8LKOTa\anru>pcov rpoTruv. 
 
 One of the best indications of the readiness to suspect men as guilty of 
 sycophancy is found in the Plutus (970). Chremylus has just disposed of a 
 sycophant, when in comes an old woman lamenting loudly as the sycophant had 
 done. "Now what's the matter here?" he asks in comic despair, "are you by 
 any chance a "sycophantress"? ^, wov Kal av <TVKO(pavTpi.a. The Scholiast's ex- 
 planation that this is equivalent to asking if she is irov-qpa lacks point. 
 
 ^ Knights 529. This involves a parody on the Homeric "Hpi? xpi^coTiSiXe 
 with the ever present pun on tTmo(pa.vTtis. Vid. Rogers' note ad loc. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 21 
 
 Much of Aristophanes' satire on the evils of the day is, no doubt, 
 exaggerated. One cannot suppose that the situation is exactly as 
 bad as he paints it. But after making due allowance for exaggera- 
 tion, there is every reason for believing that his constant ridicule of 
 sycophants would have had no dramatic value if sycophancy had not 
 been a prominent and well recognized evil in Athens. 
 
 We are not compelled to depend upon Aristophanes alone for 
 information about the prevalence of sycophancy. Evidence of every 
 sort is common in the orators. 
 
 Prosecutors constantly attempt to convince jurors that they have 
 personal motives for bringing suit. This is due to the fear that they 
 may be regarded as sycophants or, at least, as unduly litigious. The 
 satisfaction of a personal grudge by means of litigation was con- 
 sidered a proper proceeding in Athens. "For what one hears in 
 public cases is certainly true, 'that personal or private enmities recti- 
 fy many public wrongs.' "* The necessity of making this usual 
 introduction is indicated by Lysias in his accusation of Eratosthenes.' 
 He asserts that "formerly accusers had to show what their private 
 enmity was against the defendants." Although he seems to suggest 
 that the situation had changed and other things were so necessary 
 that this was no longer done, he cleverly lets the jurors know that he 
 has personal reasons by saying, " Not that I have no private grudges.'* 
 Even the unqualified protests against the custom of urging private 
 motives for a prosecution, to which expression is occasionally given^ 
 are equally instructive as to the prevalence of the practice.^" 
 
 Sometimes a speaker assures the court that he is not a sycophant. 
 "I am not acting as a sycophant in introducing this a-iroypaipr]," is the 
 introduction made by the litigious Apollodorus in one of his prosecu- 
 tions.^^ So Trygaeus, the hero of the Peace, on Heaven's threshold 
 answers the question as to who he is, by the assurance that he is "no 
 sycophant or lover of lawsuits. "^^ It would be fatal to his mission 
 to be mistaken for that undesirable type of Athenian. 
 
 The majority of speakers, however, content themselves with a 
 protestation that they are not litigious. The implication that they 
 are not sycophants would be plain. "I am not (piXoTpaynuu but 
 
 « Aesch. 1, 2. 
 
 » Lys. 12, 2-3. 
 
 "Vid. Lye. c. Leoc. 6; Dem. 23, 1; Lys. 31, 2. 
 
 " Dem. 53, 1. 
 
 "Ar. Peace 191. 
 
22 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 k-Kpayixwy." "It is with no mere fondness for litigation that I have 
 brought this suit";^^ "I have never brought a pubHc suit against a 
 citizen, gentlemen of Athens, nor have I harrassed anyone when he 
 was passing his accounts, but in respect of all of these things I have 
 conducted myself, in my opinion, as a good citizen should";^* "I 
 have tried every method possible in order to come to terms with the 
 defendant, so as to avoid using the courts, and I come here as a last 
 resort."^^ 
 
 Occasionally the prosecutor is not content to show that he has 
 lived a life of airpajfjioavvr], by asserting that he has not worried 
 others with lawsuits. He couples with this the assurance that his 
 life is such a peaceful one that no one has ever brought suit against 
 him.^^ 
 
 An exceedingly frequent method of describing one's unfamiliarity 
 with the courts is to picture one's helplessness and inability to make a 
 good speech or to plead well. "I am so far from being able to speak 
 about what it is fitting that I should, that I am afraid that I shall 
 find myself unable to speak even about what I am compelled to 
 speak. "17 
 
 The charge of sycophancy against the other side is a common 
 means of averting suspicion from oneself. A man so branded was 
 at a disadvantage: "I am unexpectedly fallen upon charges and 
 villanous sycophants" ;i^ "not as a sycophant have I brought this 
 suit, but because I was myself vexatiously prosecuted" ;i^ "My 
 opponent is an exceedingly clever speaker and very familiar with 
 the courts"; "all his life is spent in the courts" ;^° "the case against 
 me has been 'trumped up' "f^ "the case has been brought for mon- 
 ev."22 
 
 " Dem. 39, 1. 
 
 " Aesch. 1, 1. 
 
 « Dem. 30, 1 ff., cf. Lys. 32, 1-2. 
 
 " With no desire to gain the money of others unjustly, have I brought this 
 suit," says the speaker in the Trapeziticus (Isoc. 17.1.). "I have enough money 
 even if I lose the suit." The desire to avoid the charge of sycophancy is strong 
 indeed to make a litigant confess that he has money. 
 
 " Dem. 24, 6; Lys. 12, 3; 19, 55. Dem. 34, 1. 
 
 "Lys. 17, 1; Dem. 21, 141. 
 
 18 Lys. 7, 1; (Dem.) 40, 5, 12, 16, 32, 43, 53. That the accused in this case 
 is a professional sycophant does not damage the value of the statements. 
 
 1' Aesch. 1, 1. avTos i5Lq. cjvKO<pavTovixevos. 
 
 2" Dem. 22, 4; 23, 206; vid. also Plato Apol. 17 BC. 
 
 " And. 1, 117; sec. 1-7 are rbvoi of this nature also. Dem. 24, 1. 
 
 22 Ant. 5, 59, 79. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 23 
 
 Doubtless the most instructive passage on the prevalence of 
 sycophancy and on the attitude of the bulk of the Athenians toward 
 it is found in the Antidosis of Isocrates. In his old age the orator 
 feels the necessity of writing a defense of his life and teaching. The 
 plan that he chooses for this defence is significant.^^ '*I saw that if 
 I should endeavor to praise myself, I should find myself unable to 
 include everything that I had set out to discuss, and that I should not 
 succeed in speaking pleasingly nor fail to incur envy. But if I should 
 represent myself as involved in a lawsuit and in danger, and represent 
 the one who had brought the suit against me, and was causing me the 
 trouble, as a sycophant who employed the same slanders that were 
 used against me in the antidosis case, and if, further, I should repre- 
 sent myself as speaking in the form of a defense, I saw that in this way 
 it would be possible for me to talk most easily about anything that I 
 might happen to want to discuss." This speech was not intended 
 for delivery in the courts, but for publication. This makes the 
 statement more valuable. Not all the accusations of sycophancy 
 made by litigants in the court room can be taken seriously. Their 
 statements are ex parte. But the use of the sycophant motif 
 in this speech by Isocrates, indicates that those of the reading public 
 into whose hands the awoXoyia would fall, were sure to receive with 
 sympathetic interest an autobiography that represented its author 
 as a much abused citizen hounded by a sycophant. 
 
 Since sycophancy had become such a disease it is not surprising 
 that some conservative and anti-democratic Athenians preferred to 
 live away from the city. This would be especially true of the wealthy 
 ones who were in greater danger from the sycophants. Diognetus, 
 the brother of Nicias was beset so much by sycophants that he left 
 the city.^^ Some citizens possessed estates in Thrace and resided 
 there to be rid of the litigation and worry of Athens.^^ In the 
 Knights Cleon is represented as endeavoring to bring such men 
 back to Athens and involve them in lawsuits. "And if you know 
 of some one who is living a peaceful life, free from lawsuits and who 
 is a dullard, you bring him back from the Chersonese, catch him 
 around the middle, nip him in the hook of your arm, then wrench 
 his shoulder and — bolt him."^^ Charmides in the Symposium of 
 
 ^ Isoc. 15, 8. 
 **Lysias 18, 9. 
 
 '"Ar. Knights 261 (Merry.) Cf. Frere's notes ad loc; Ant. 5. 78; Ar. 
 Wasps 281. Van Leeuwen takes this to refer to a rich cleruch. 
 
24 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 Xenophon,^^ congratulates himself on his poverty, because it freed 
 him from the persecutions of the numerous sycophants who beset 
 him when he was wealthy. "Then I was compelled to fawn on them 
 for exceedingly good reasons. I was always being appointed to 
 some service by the state, and was never able to get away from 
 Athens."^'' Freedom from attacks by sycophants is regarded by 
 Plutarch as one of the consolations for banishment.^^ 
 
 The whole plot of the Birds centers about the desire of two con- 
 servative Athenians to get away from litigious Athens and spend their 
 days quietly. Of course, this is not direct proof that Athenians in 
 any great numbers did look for a tottov aTpdyixova in actual life.^* 
 But taken together with the other references to the habit it is corrob- 
 orative evidence. 
 
 Sycophancy had grown until it had become a profession in 
 Athens. Epichares, one of those in the cabal against Andocides, 
 is accused of having lived by sycophancy under the democracy.^" 
 There must have been a considerable number of such professionals, 
 since the first attack of the Thirty was made against those who made 
 a living by the methods of sycophants.^^ When Praxagora tells her 
 husband that under the new situation, with women in control of the 
 government, he shall no longer be permitted to play the sycophant, 
 he cries out "Oh! by heaven. Don't do that. Don't take away 
 my life and livelihood. "^^ 
 
 There are good reasons for believing that the profession of syco- 
 phant was handed dov/n from father to son in some families. The 
 sycophant that makes his appearance in Nephelococcygia knows of 
 no way to make his living except by his pettifoggery. Ke refuses 
 to learn any more honest occupation. That would be to shame his 
 
 2« IV, 30. 
 
 ^'' Clearly he does not mean merely that his liturgies kept him from the 
 pleasures of travel. The force of the /cat yap 8ri Kai and of the fxev and 5e of the follow- 
 ing clauses shows that the awodrifxeLv, if it had been within his power to indulge in it, 
 would have been a method of relieving himself of the necessity of "fawning" on 
 the sycophants. 
 
 •^DeExilio 11. (Didot Vol. I, 729.) 
 
 " Ar. Birds 44. 
 
 3" And. 1, 99. 
 
 '*Xen. Hellen. II, 3, 12. Sycophants are blamed for the war {Achar. 820) 
 and the revolt of the allies (Lys. 25. 19; Isoc. 15, 316-18). This implies that there 
 were very many. 
 
 '^ Ar. Ecd. 562-3 /iijS' acpeX-^ nov t6v ^lov. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 25 
 
 family. The profession of sycophant has been in his family for 
 several generations and it would mean disgrace to give it up.^* 
 
 To anyone but the extreme democrat the sycophants must have 
 been jSapets.^ There is little reason for wonder that the Thirty 
 made their first attack on democracy by ridding the state of those 
 who made a profession of sycophancy.^^ In regard to this measure 
 there was apparently unanimity of opinion among the tyrants. 
 Theramenes, who was always regarded the most moderate of the body, 
 in his defence of his opposition to their extreme cruelties, says, 
 " While you put out of the way those who were confessedly sycophants 
 we were all of the same mind."^^ Aristotle says that the city was 
 delighted with the first measures of the Thirty; "the execution of the 
 sycophants and others who were KaKorpayfioves Kal Tovr]poL." People 
 thought that the Thirty were acting for the good of the state.^^ 
 
 Many an Athenian would undoubtedly agree with the Megarian 
 in the Acharnians: "olov to Kanbv kv toIs 'AdijvaLs tovt' 'ivi."^'' 
 
 No better statement of the situation that had been brought about 
 by the prevalence of sycophants can be found than the words of the 
 orator Lycurgus. "Things have now come to such a pass, that the 
 man who undergoes personal risk and incurs hatred for the sake 
 of the state, gets the reputation of being not ^iXottoXis but (pCkoirpay- 
 nuv."^^ The situation had changed since the days of Pericles, when a 
 man who was Lirpayixiav was regarded as a useless citizen.^^ 
 
 33 Ar. Birds. 1432 ff.; 1451 ft. Cf. MuUer-Striibing, Aristoph. u. die Hist. 
 Kritik. p. 326 ff., for the same view. Cf. Ar. Frogs 1146-49. 
 "Hell. II, 3, 12. 
 35 Ibid. II, 3, 38. 
 ^'^ Const, of Athens. 35, 3. 
 " Ar. Achar. 829. 
 '* Lye. c. Leoc. 3. 
 '9 Thucy. 2. 40. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 The Activities and Methods of Sycophants 
 The Sycophant as Litigant 
 
 Although the provision of i^elvai rc3 ^ovXofxhia ypa<peadaL laid the 
 whole range of public suits open to the sycophant, he would natur- 
 ally prefer such as yielded him money if he was successful. These 
 were (1) <pa(ns (2) airoypaipi] (3) ypa(pri ^evias. 
 
 (paffis. This is defined as "the action brought against those who 
 contravened the laws relating to trade, the customs, mining, and also 
 against guardians who had either omitted altogether to invest their 
 wards' fortunes or had made a bad investment." In case of successful 
 prosecution, the plaintiff received one-half of the amount of property 
 confiscated or of the fine levied.^ 
 
 The most common <pdaeLs seem to have dealt with matters of 
 trade and commerce, and our information about their use in such 
 cases is more accurate than in the others.^ The procedure was used 
 against those who carried goods contrary to law to some non- Athenian 
 market, or loaned money on a ship that made its return voyage to 
 some other harbor than Athens;^ against those who broke the laws 
 about importation* and exportation, especially against those who 
 imported something from an enemy^ or sent weapons or material for 
 shipbuilding to an enemy ;^ against those who broke the custom laws.^ 
 
 No speeches arising from a (paacs are extant. There are however 
 references to such suits in the orators. An instance in which a 
 professional sycophant brought a (paats is mentioned in the case of 
 Epichares vs. Theocrines. The defendant in this case, to accept his 
 opponent's story, had brought suit by ipaais against Micion for the 
 violation of some mercantile law. Before the case came to trial 
 he accepted Micion's overtures for settlement. This settlement 
 Epichares uses as one of the several charges against the defendant.^ 
 
 1 Gilbert, Const. Antiq. (Eng.) 406; Lipsius, A. R. 310; (Dem.) 58, 13. 
 
 *Lipsius. op. cit. 312. 
 
 3 (Dem.) 35, 51. Cf. (58, 12); 56, 6. 
 
 *C. I. A. I, n, 31, iA. 
 
 6 Ar. Achar. 819 ff.; 908 ff.; Isoc. 17, 42. 
 
 • At. Frogs, 362 ff . 
 
 » Ar. Knights 300 ff . 
 
 » (Dem.) 58, 8. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 27 
 
 A similar ^do-ts is mentioned in the Trapeziticus.^ The speaker 
 has occasion to refer to an incident in the past when he was nearly 
 condemned to death because some sycophants brought a ^ao-is 
 against him, alleging that a ship, on which he had loaned money, 
 belonged to a man from Delos. The danger in which he had found 
 himself is probably due to the fact that Delos had been opposed to 
 Athens in the Corinthian War^" and the jurors were easily inflamed 
 against any one who seemed to have been aiding the enemy. At 
 such times ^do-ets would prove extremely attractive to sycophants. 
 
 It is reasonable to suppose that ^daeis against those who neglected 
 their duties as guardians were rather numerous. The attitude of 
 jurors on a case in which orphans were concerned would encourage 
 many a sycophant to prosecute wherever possible. The speaker in the 
 irapaypacpri vs. Nausimachus shows how easy it was to secure con- 
 viction in such cases. He justifies his father's action, years before 
 the trial, in settling with his wards out of court, when they brought 
 suit against him for breach of trust: "For they were orphans and 
 young and their characters were unknown; things that with you, as 
 every one says, outweigh a multitude of arguments. "^^ 
 
 $do-ets against those who broke the laws regulating the use of 
 mines may have been quite common. Hyperides uses such a ^do-is 
 as an example of a suit in which a sycophant lost his case in the court.^^ 
 Perhaps the difficulty of keeping to the boundary lines, under the 
 surface of the earth, offered a litigious person chances of bringing 
 such suits. 
 
 It is likely that the (pacns was the form of procedure used to prose- 
 cute those who infringed upon the law that Kmited the number of 
 olive trees that an Athenian might use yearly. The defendant, if 
 convicted, was obliged to pay three hundred drachmae to the state 
 and the same amount to the prosecutor.^^ 
 
 In other ^daets the penalty was assessed by the court (ri/ir/ros).^* 
 In cases where a man was convicted of contravening the commerce 
 laws the penalty was, in all probability, confiscation of vessel and 
 cargo.^^ In ^do-eis against guardians, the penalty was a fine of which 
 
 » Isoc. 17, 42. 
 
 "Lipsius, ^.i?. 312, n. 13. 
 
 " Dem. 38, 20. Cf. 37, 45; (58, 6). 
 
 1== Hyp. IV. 35. 
 
 " (Dem.) 43, 71. Cf. Lipsius op. cit. 313. 
 
 "Lipsius op. cit. 315. 
 
 « Ibid., 313 n. 13. 
 
28 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 a part went to the ward and a part to the successful prosecutor.^® 
 Opportunities for gaining such rewards could not fail to be extremely 
 attractive to the sycophant. 
 
 ^acreLs are mentioned as some of the suits regularly used by 
 sycophants like Aristogiton^'^ and Menecles and his set.^^ The 
 numerous references to the (paacs in Aristophanes, both directly and in 
 puns, show how common it was.^^ These references imply that syco- 
 phants made free use of this form of suit. The troubles that Dicaeo- 
 polis had with sycophants in his market clearly show how watchful 
 informers were for a chance to report contraband goods. 
 
 Probably the best indication of the frequency with which syco- 
 phants used the (pacns is the important part that (paaus and (fxiiveiv 
 in their technical legal sense, play in some of the suggested etymolo- 
 gies of avKOipavrelv}'^ 
 
 aTToypacpy]. This term has two common meanings. (1) An 
 inventory of goods claimed as state property and alleged to be 
 unlawfully held by a private person. (2) The legal action taken to 
 recover such property for the state. The airoypacpr] was most com- 
 monly used against state debtors who concealed their effects, or 
 against some one who was supposed to have unlawful possession of 
 confiscated property.^^ Relatives were constantly accused of con- 
 cealing confiscated property, or of complicity in concealing the 
 effects of a state debtor. 
 
 Several features of the airoypa<pr) made it especially attractive to 
 sycophants. The successful prosecutor received three-fourths of the 
 property recovered.^^ Such a large reward was intended to encourage 
 watchfulness on the part of the citizens. Recovery of property for 
 the state was important. In an aTroypa<pr] the prosecutor had a 
 decided advantage. The defendant was naturally a man of means. 
 No sycophant would care to bring such accusation against a poor man. 
 He could afford therefore to slight the evidence and devote much of 
 his time to generalizations about the defendant's wealth and to 
 appeals to the jurors' cupidity. In the extant speeches that deal 
 
 i« Cf. Ibid. 315, n. 23; Pollux VIII, 48; Plato Laws 928 BC; 745A. 
 
 " Dem. 25, 78. 
 
 18 Dem. 39, 14. 
 
 " Ar. Achar. 819; 908. Vid. p. v. above for other references. 
 
 20 Plut. Solon 24. 
 
 " Paley and Sandys, Intro, and Notes, Dem. 53; Lys. 19. 
 
 ^ Dem. 53, 1. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 29 
 
 with the cLToypacpr] this is the course followed. The wealth of Eucrates 
 the brother of Nicias figures very prominently in one.^* In the case 
 vs. Philocrates his free use of money for bribery is emphasized as an 
 indication of his wealth.^* The plaintiff in Apollodorus vs. Nicostratus 
 devotes but little time to matters that are relevant to the case before 
 the court.^^ At the end he makes strong appeal to the jurors by 
 reminding them that the suit deals with "what is their own." Some 
 prosecutors did not hesitate to warn the jurors that their fees were in 
 danger unless the treasury was replenished by conviction of the de- 
 fendant.^^ When conviction meant confiscation of property or pay- 
 ment of fines this was especially effective. The danger of defendants 
 was much greater if the suit was brought when the funds of the state 
 were low. The defendant in the airoypaipri brought for the recovery 
 of the property of Aristophanes comments on the slight chances 
 that he has in such a suit in view of the scarcity of money in the 
 public treasury and the general belief that the man whose property 
 is in question was wealthy.^'^ 
 
 The readiness of jurors to suspect friends, and especially relatives, 
 of concealing confiscated property added to the advantage that the 
 sycophant had in this suit. The aToypaiprj vs. Philocrates was brought 
 under the conviction that he had in his possession the property of his 
 comrade Ergocles, who had grown rich at public expense.^^ 
 
 When relatives were on trial prosecutors neglected to confine 
 their remarks to proof that these relatives had in their possession 
 the property in question. They attempted rather to show that the 
 defendants were rich men and let it be inferred from probabilities that 
 a part of this wealth was derived from the property which they were 
 said to have concealed. Such arguments tended to influence the 
 jurors against the accused. In the arroypacpt] for recovery of the 
 property of Aristophanes, the property actually at stake is that of 
 Aristophanes' brother-in-law.^^ 
 
 While there is no certain instance of aToypa(pal brought by syco- 
 phants apart from the one mentioned by Hyperides,^° the case dealing 
 
 23Lys. 18, l.Vid. p. 30, n. 31 
 
 2*Lys. 29, 1;28, 1. 
 
 ^Dem. 53, 26-27; cf. Lys. 29, 8; 19, 11. 
 
 2«Lys. 27, 1. 
 
 "Lys. 19, 11. 
 
 «8Lys. 28, 1. 
 
 *'Lys. 19, and vid. Adams' intro. p. 162, note 2. 
 
 '» IV, 35 ff. 
 
30 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 with the property of Eucrates,^^ the brother of Nicias, is a good 
 example of the methods that a sycophant would follow. Eucrates 
 was put to death by the Thirty in 404 B.C Several years later 
 Poliochus proposed the confiscation of the property left by Eucrates. 
 A decree was passed to that effect. In the speech that we have the 
 elder son of Eucrates opposes its execution. The reasons for the 
 confiscation are not known. The impression that the defense makes, 
 however, is that the whole affair is due to some litigious person's 
 desire to enrich himself by bringing before the court a relative of the 
 wealthy Nicias, who was never a friend of the extreme democracy. 
 Ordinarily the relatives of a man put to death by the Thirty would 
 run no such ri;-k as the descendants of Eucrates do in this case. 
 But the wealth and conservative tone of this family were serious 
 disadvantages. Confirmatory evidence for this view is found in the 
 reference to the voluntary exile of Diognetus, another brother of 
 Nicias, due to the malicious persecution of sycophants.^^ 
 
 Opportunities of bringing airoypaipai against state debtors must 
 have been numerous. The case of Apollodorus vs. Nicostratus is of 
 that type. The litigious nature of the prosecutor and his careful 
 insistence on the desire to avenge himself for personal wrongs might 
 arouse suspicion that in this instance we have a case in which the 
 prosecutor is a sycophant, and is bringing the suit for the financial 
 gain that there may be in it. But his renunciation of the reward is 
 rather conclusive proof that he is sincere in the motives he alleges.^^ 
 After all it is not important whether Apollodorus is a. sycophant in 
 this prosecution or not. His careful insistence on personal motives 
 and the renunciation of the fee are intended to show that he is not. 
 This in itself is the best indication of the degree to which sycophants 
 used the aTroypaiprj. The jurors were likely to be suspicious of a 
 prosecutor in a suit of this type unless he made special efforts to put 
 himself in the right light before them. 
 
 There are general charges of sycophancy in some of the cases.^ 
 These do not, to be sure, prove anything about the character of the 
 
 '^Lys. 18. Lipsius {A. R. 299) regards this speech as dealing with an ATroypa^^. 
 It certainly has the tone of a defence rather than that of a speech delivered by a prose- 
 cutor attacking the constitutionalitj- of a decree. For the latter view vid. Jebb Att. 
 Or. Vol. I, 229. 
 
 ^^Lys. 18, 19. 
 
 53 Dem. 53, 1 fit. 
 
 ^''Lys. 19,9,51,64. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 31 
 
 prosecutor in question. But they point unmistakably to the fact 
 that the aTroypa<pr] was a favorite suit with sycophants. There were 
 undoubtedly many of the profession who like Agoratus enriched 
 themselves by this form of suit.^^ 
 
 Significant evidence of the number of <paaeLs and a-Koypaipal that 
 were brought by sycophants is found in the fact that Hyperides 
 chooses such suits as typical examples of the activity of sycophants.^^ 
 The orator devotes considerable space in the latter part of the 
 speech for Euxinippus to a defence of the courts. His main thesis 
 is that sycophants are regularly punished and that in this way the 
 courts aid the citizens. As examples of this he cites the cases of 
 Lysander and Teisis. The latter had brought an airoypaipr] alleging 
 that the property of Euthycrates was Hable for confiscation. To win 
 the jurors' votes he promised to get for the state more than 
 seventy talents. He also made promises of bringing similar actions 
 against two other Athenians. He lost his case, however, and did not 
 receive one-fifth of the votes. The case of Lysander was similar. 
 He had brought a (paacs against Epicrates on the ground that he was 
 not keeping within the prescribed limits in the working of his mine. 
 He also used the customary methods in trying to influence the 
 jurors. He assured them that conviction meant three hundred 
 talents for the state. In spite of this he lost the case. Hyperides 
 naturally picks out well-known examples in which the nature of the 
 cases brought by the sycophants was so clear to the jurors that the 
 appeals that were usually effective failed to have their expected re- 
 sults. 
 
 ypaipij ^evlas.^'^ The law quoted in Theomnestus vs. Neaera et 
 Stephanus^^ shows opportunities for financial gain in another kind of 
 suit. "If an alien shall live as husband with an Athenian woman by 
 any device or contrivance whatsoever, it shall be lawful for any 
 Athenians, who are possessed of such right, to indict him before the 
 judges. And if he is convicted, he shall be sold for a slave and his 
 property shall be confiscated, and the third part shall belong to the 
 person who secured his conviction. And the Hke proceedings shall 
 be taken, if an alien woman live as wife with an Athenian citizen 
 
 ^ Lysias 13, 65. &Troypa(l>ri is here mentioned as the sort of procedure that this 
 sycophant had used with great financial success. 
 =« Hyp. IV, 33 S. 
 
 " Vid. Lipsius A. R. 417; Meier-Schomann-Lipsius, Attische Process, (MSL) 424 ff. 
 "8 (Dem.) 59, 16; (Kennedy). 
 
32 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 and the citizen who lives as husband with an alien woman so con- 
 victed shall incur the penalty of a thousand drachmas." Also this 
 law:^^ "If any one shall give a foreign woman in marriage to a 
 citizen of Athens, representing her as belonging to himself he shall be 
 disfranchised, and his property shall be confiscated, and the third 
 part thereof shall be given to the person who has procured his con- 
 viction." 
 
 Stephanus and Neaera are accused of having transgressed these 
 laws. If Apollodorus describes the situation truthfully, there can 
 be no doubt that in this instance he and Theomnestus were justified 
 in prosecuting. Their motives were, however, revenge and they 
 emphasize this to make clear to the jurors that they are not syco- 
 phants. The chance of getting the reward would appeal to many 
 who would accuse for no other motive. They were reasonably sure 
 of success since the jurors would be influenced by the Athenian 
 jealousy of the rights of citizenship and the desire to keep the Attic 
 blood free from contamination. 
 
 As litigant the sycophant could avail himself, on occasion, of 
 private suits (St/cat) as well as public. But the chances here were 
 fewer. He could bring such suits only if personally concerned.**' 
 
 The Sycophant as a Blackmailer 
 
 The most lucrative side of the sycophant's business must have 
 been blackmail.^ When one recalls the nature of the courts one 
 realizes that many an Athenian would prefer to settle with his 
 accuser out of court, rather than run the risk that a trial would 
 involve. He never knew what incident in his past life might be 
 brought into the case to influence the jurors or who might join in 
 attacking him. The father of Mantitheus feared to come into 
 court in a case brought by Boeotus lest someone who had been 
 offended by him in some political act might come forward and aid 
 his accusers.^ If a man of means was haled to court his enemies reg- 
 ularly assisted the prosecutor and if a verdict was secured, it acted as 
 an incentive to others to bring suits against him. The defendant in 
 
 ^Ubid.,S2. (Kennedy). 
 
 *" Discussion of the sycophant's use of Si/cai will be found on p. 46 ff . 
 
 1 Lys. 25. 3. 
 
 > Dam. 39, 3. Cf. Ar. Wasps 841. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 3$ 
 
 the case vs. Simon^ states that Simon had made no effort to bring suit 
 against him until he had been unsuccessful in some private suits 
 that had sprung up as a result of an antidosis. In the defence of 
 his life Isocrates represents himself beset by a sycophant who had 
 attacked him after he lost the suit that dealt with the antidosis, 
 and who made use of some of the misrepresentations and slanders 
 directed against Isocrates in that suit.* 
 
 The fear aroused by a summons to court is shown by the fact that 
 in the extant homicide cases the desire to dispose of a man who had 
 begun or threatened litigation is constantly treated as one of the 
 possible motives of homicide. This appears as a topos in the First 
 Tetralogy of Antiphon.^ The man whom the defendant is accused 
 of having murdered had secured several convictions against him and 
 had but recently entered a new suit. It was in the hope of avoiding 
 this suit, so the plaintiff charged, that the defendant had committed 
 the deed. Such extreme measures might be rather natural if the 
 prospective defendant was actually guilty. But even the fear of 
 meeting in court entirely groundless charges brought by a sycophant, 
 seems to have been a conventional explanation of a homicide. Eu- 
 philetus, in his defense, when accused of the murder of Eratosthenes, 
 relates why he was justified in killing the latter. He then shows that 
 there was nothing else in his previous relations with the dead man 
 that could be suggested as a motive for his action, ''ovre yap avKo- 
 <pavTwv fxe eypaiparo" is the first motive that he suggests for rejection.^ 
 
 Other features also made blackmail very successful. It hardly 
 needs to be said that the poor would scarcely ever be threatened 
 with prosecution by a professional litigant. ^ There was nothing to 
 gain if he won his suit and certainly no chances for getting money 
 by threats of litigation. Therefore the wealthy and aTrpaj/jioves^ 
 were the natural targets for the sycophant's attacks. "Those who 
 are clever talkers and have no money try to make groundless attacks 
 on those who are no speakers at all, but are able to pay weli."^ 
 They hated Htigation and could well afford to pay hush-money. 
 
 ' Lys. 3, 20. 
 * Isoc. 15, 8, 33. 
 » Ant. A a 5-6. Cf. Ant. 5, 60. 
 « Lys. 1, 43. 
 
 ' "xept rds oiaias klvSvvcov o\j ukrearL toXs irevTicn." Isoc. 20.15. 
 Ar. Birds, 285 KoXXfas &v yewaios vird crvKOipavrGiv riXXerai. 
 •Isoc. 21.5. 
 
34 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 Demosthenes describes a man who was so averse to litigation (aTpay- 
 nuv) and so upright that he lost his whole property, evidently either 
 through court judgments or by paying accusers to keep the matter 
 out of the courts.^" His desire to live without Tpaynoavvr] was appar- 
 ently well known to sycophants. "The rich can buy off kLvSuvol" 
 is the terse summary of the Cripple. ^^ "By displaying their powers in 
 the case of men who live uprightly they can exact much more money 
 from real evil doers" is Isocrates' explanation of the activities of the 
 sycophant against law abiding airpa.'yixovesP "Those who are 
 guilty of no wrong are the ones from whom sycophants get most of 
 their money" is the opinion expressed by another speaker. ^^ Timar- 
 chus is described as having made most of his money by blackmailing 
 those who were entirely innocent of any wrong.^* Cleon is said to 
 have been especially ready to attack airpayixoves}^ The attitude of 
 the jurors towards such wealthy defendants assisted the sycophant. 
 Charmides in Xenophon's Symposium says that his most prized 
 possession is his poverty. When he was rich he was compelled to 
 fawn on sycophants and was in constant dread of losing his money 
 because he knew that they could do him more harm than he could 
 do to them.'^^ The harm that he mentions is presumably the adverse 
 decision that he would have reason to expect if he carried a matter 
 to the court. "Before the jurors" says Isocrates somewhat bitterly, 
 "a defendant must apologize for financial success. Wealth rather 
 than crime makes a man's life precarious."^'' 
 
 A clear case of settlement to avoid trial is found in Epichares vs. 
 Theocrines}^ The defendant had brought a ^pa<7Ls against Micion 
 for violating some mercantile law. The latter had apparently inten- 
 ded to appear in court and defend himself, for the (pacris "was hung 
 out for a long time before the synedrion of the overseers of the 
 Emporium." Just before the anacrisis, however, Micion decided to 
 pay Theocrines and so put a stop to the proceedings. Theocrines, 
 the professional sycophant had probably suggested that this would 
 
 lODem. 21, 83. 
 
 "Lys. 24, 17. 
 
 »2 Isoc. 15, 24-25. 
 
 " Lys. 25, 3. 
 
 "Aesch. 1, 107. 
 
 " Ar. Knights, 261. 
 
 " Xen. Symp. IV, 30. 
 
 " Isoc. 15, 160. Cf. Xen. Mem. IV, 2.35. 
 
 " (Dem.) 58, 6, 8 ff. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 35 
 
 be an easy way out. Upon receipt of the money Theocrines withdrew 
 his charge. The fact that the sycophant had accepted a trifling 
 sum in settlement, and so lost the half of the forfeiture that convic- 
 tion would have brought, is used by Epichares to prove that the 
 (poLCTis against Micion was groundless. The reasoning is plausible. 
 Micion may not have cared to take the risk that a trial would involve 
 even though he was innocent. 
 
 References to such instances of blackmail are common. Theo- 
 crines seems to have been very successful in forcing people to pay 
 him hush money.^^ Aristogiton another professional sycophant 
 often started suit against men of high standing in the state and 
 dropped proceedings when they offered money.^" Ariston, made it 
 his business to issue legal summons to "everybody" according to 
 the statement of Hyperides. If those who were summoned did not 
 pay him hush-money he forced them to come into court and stand 
 trial.2^ 
 
 References to blackmail are frequent in Aristophanes. The 
 Chorus of Knights urges Agoracritus, the Sausage Seller to attack 
 Cleon for having received bribes. If he does this he will be the 
 mightiest of the Greeks and rule over the allies, and will make much 
 money by shaking {aeioiv) and disturbing {rapaTToov) them.^^ The 
 use of adoiv suggests the description of Philocrates and his blackmail 
 of magistrates.^^ One passage is of special interest and value in this 
 connection. The Sausage Seller and Cleon are striving for the favor 
 of Demus by offering rival oracles. One that the former reads 
 warns Demus to "beware of Cyllene." "What Cyllene?" asks 
 Demus. "He calls this fellow's hand Cyllene, and he is right in 
 that. For he says 'put into my bent hand.' "^ The pun is untrans- 
 latable and involves a play on KyW-qpr) a sea port in Elis and /cuXXf; 
 (x€t/)0 a bent hand. The Scholiast explains the reference by the 
 
 " Ihid. 32. 
 
 2" Dem. 25. Vid. Section on "Typical Athenian Sycophants" for full discus- 
 sion, p. 78 fif. 
 
 " Hyp. 1, 2. 
 
 *2 Ar. Knights 840; for the same thought vid. Ar. Peace 639; Knights 472 
 iofHov Toiis Traxets xal irXovcriovs. 
 
 ^^ ffdu seems to be technical for "shake down." The remark of the Scholiast 
 on Knights 1083 contains the reference to the sycophants as "ol <reLopTes." In his 
 time the word had apparently become fixed with that meaning. Vid. Van Leeu- 
 wen and Rogers ad loc. 
 
 ^Knights 1083. Merry translates " Crookhaven." 
 
36 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 statement that Athenian informers, while threatening their victims, 
 were in the habit of sUpping out their bent hands from under their 
 cloaks, intimating thereby that they would stop all proceeding? for a 
 "consideration." 
 
 The blackmailer did of course run a risk. He might be disappointed 
 in his hopes of receiving hush-money. It would then be almost neces- 
 sary for him to carry the case into court. Not to do so would make 
 future threats futile. This exposed him to the danger of losing the 
 case and perhaps of failure to receive a fifth of the votes. The mere 
 loss of a case entailed no serious financial inconvenience, but he would 
 bear the stigma of having made an ineffectual attempt and for the 
 sycophant that was serious enough. But failure to receive at least 
 one-fifth of the votes usually involved a fine of one thousand drach- 
 mas and the inability of bringing a similar case again.^^ This makes 
 it entirely reasonable that sycophants were willing ordinarily to ac- 
 cept rather small sums by way of settlement. Crito speaks of them 
 as cheap and easily bought off.^^ Theocrines was willing to settle 
 with Miciqn for a "trifling sum" rather than take his chances of win- 
 ning a much larger sum by a successful trial, even though the reward 
 in this case (^^dcrts) would have been unusually large.^^ The advan- 
 tages that a prosecutor regularly had, however, were so much in the 
 sycophant's favor that he would not often hesitate to bring suit if 
 forced to do so. Moreover a suit was worth the risk. A successful 
 prosecution, though it brought no financial advantage, increased the 
 terror of the sycophant's name. How very effective this was is 
 seen from an incident in the career of the sycophant Theocrines.^^ 
 
 The father of Epichares had drawn up a decree proposing that 
 maintenance in the Prytaneum be given Charidemus, the son of 
 Ischomachus. Theocrines brought a graphe paranomon against him 
 for this motion. The boy had been adopted by Aeschylus. Theo- 
 crines urged that he should not be restored to his father's family; 
 a situation that would result if the decree was passed. Under those 
 circumstances he would lose the estate that Aeschylus had given 
 him. He further asserted that Polyeuctus who had married the boy's 
 mother, had contrived to have the decree proposed so as to get the 
 money that the boy would lose if it were carried. Theocrines offered 
 
 25 Vid. Section on " Checks on Sycophancy," p. 86 ff. 
 « Plato Crito 45 A. 
 " (Dem.) 58, 12-13. 
 28 (Dem.) 58, 32 £f. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 37 
 
 Epichares' father the chance of settlement. He said he was willing 
 to withdraw his suit if he paid him ten talents. Such a sum the 
 defendant could not pay however. The readiness of the Athenian 
 jury to sympathize with orphans gave Theocrines a feeling of assur- 
 ance in this case and he carried the matter through and won, as was 
 to be expected. His success offered him an unusually excellent 
 opportunity to extort money. He knew that the jurors were angered 
 at Polyeuctus for what they considered a plot to rob an orphan. 
 That was just the time to threaten him with prosecution. He 
 would hardly dare to let the matter come to trial. Theocrines sum- 
 moned him before the archon and brought a ypa<pri /ca/ccbo-ecos against 
 him. For a while Polyeuctus hesitated as to what course to follow. 
 Theocrines handed the indictment to the assessor. This decided 
 the matter. Polyeuctus paid him three hundred drachmas and the 
 case was dropped.^^ 
 
 To make their threats of litigation more productive of gain, 
 sycophants employed others to assist them in frightening their vic- 
 tims. Callimachus sent "his friends" to urge a prospective defendant 
 to settle out of court. They dwelt on the numerous chances of mis- 
 carriage of justice in the courts and urged him not to allow himself 
 to be abused publicly (fx,ri ^ovKtadai KaKcis aKoveiv). Their arguments, 
 are said to be the usual ones on such occasions. 
 
 Callimachus also took occasion to spread rumors about the 
 city of his own mistreatment at the hands of the defendant. Such 
 statements were intended to affect the jurors' decision — some . of 
 the men to whom he talked might later serve as jurors on the case. 
 And even if not, the rumors would be likely to come to the ears of the 
 jurors.^" 
 
 Suits in which no fine or atimia followed the failure to^receive 
 one-fifth of the votes offered the least danger to the sycophant, if 
 he was compelled to put a threat of litigation into effect. So far as 
 can be determined, however, there were very few such public suits. 
 In fact, a literal interpretation of a passage in Isaeus would indicate 
 that eisangeliae against those who mistreated orphans, heiresses, 
 widows or parents were the only aKlv8vvoL ypatpaL^^ These at least 
 were so. Court fees were even omitted in such cases. With regard 
 
 ^' In a similar way the success of Callimachus in extorting money made 
 subsequent eflforts successful. Isoc. 18,7-10. 
 »" Isoc. 18, 7-10. 
 " Isaeus, III, 46-47. 
 
38 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 to eisangeliae in general, references disagree. It seems probable, 
 though, that originally all eisangeliae were aKlvdvvot,, especially since 
 they were used only in cases that seemed to require extraordinary 
 measures. The language in the case of Ariston vs. Lycophron indi- 
 cates that in the time of Hyperides they were free from fine or atimia.^^ 
 The statement of a Lexicographer to the effect that prosecutors who 
 lost eisangelia were fined, but not punished with atimia, is probably 
 true of the later time when sycophants had so abused these suits 
 that measures had to be taken to check them.^^ Considerable oppor- 
 tunities for blackmail were undoubtedly offered by the eisangelia. 
 The defendant would in all likelihood be turned over to the court 
 for trial even though the case was brought in the first instance 
 before either the ecclesia or Boule. Under such circumstances he was 
 in greater danger than usual. The very fact that the body before 
 which the case had been entered thought the accused man worthy 
 of trial made the courts more ready to believe him guilty. This 
 situation offered the sycophant a splendid opportunity to get money 
 from a man by threatening him with such a prosecution. If he paid, 
 well and good. If he took his chances and came before the court (or 
 whatever body tried the case) the suit was advbvvos. If the man 
 became frightened and left the country and went into exile, as some 
 did who were threatened with this sort of suit,^^ the sycophant could 
 point to the instance and pretend that he had done the state a great 
 benefit in attacking a man who confessed, by his voluntary exile, that 
 he was guilty. This would also incidentally show his power. In 
 the hands of the sycophant Aristogiton the eisangelia was an effective 
 weapon. He began eisanglia proceedings against Hegemon, but 
 discontinued them when the latter paid him the bribe he desired. Over 
 Demades he held threats of a similar suit until he forced him also to 
 pay blackmail.^^ 
 
 Numerous chances for blackmail were undoubtedly found in 
 threats of accusations against those who were exercising the rights of 
 citizens though they were wholly or partially disfranchised.^® Atimia 
 in its various forms was very common in Athens. There were apparently 
 
 '2 MSL. 952; Hyp. 1, 12; Pollux VIII, 52 ff. 
 " Pollux VIII, 53. 
 " Lye. c. Leoc. 90. 
 " Dem. 25, 47. 
 
 " Vid. D. and S. Did. des Antiq. s. v. atimia: Lipsius A. R. partial, 245, 396; 
 complete 789, 947. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 39 
 
 no means of automatically insuring the exclusion of the atimoi from 
 the rights of citizenship. The effectiveness of the atimia depended 
 on the watchfulness of the citizens. That persons who were par- 
 tially disfranchised did succeed in passing themselves off as extrtjuot 
 with full rights, is shown by the fact that litigants constantly 
 accused their opponents of availing themselves of privileges to 
 which they were not entitled.^^ A full list of the various atimiae is 
 hardly necessary for the present purpose. The most common seem 
 to have fallen on state-debtors;^^ on those convicted for crimes that 
 the Athenians considered especially serious — e.g., theft, ill-treatment 
 of parents, desertion ;^^ on prosecutors who failed to receive as much 
 as a fifth of the votes in a public suit or who withdrew from a pubHc 
 suit after starting it.*° A common form of partial atimia was that 
 by which a man was prevented from speaking in public or serving as a 
 juror.^^ In the very nature of the case there must have been many 
 who attempted to disregard this restriction. The occasion for the 
 suit of Demosthenes vs. Aristogiton was the latter's continued attempts 
 to take part in the meetings of the assembly and to serve as juror, 
 before he was discharged from certain debts to the state.*^ The 
 same charge was included in the accusation against Theocrines.'*^ 
 One of the counts against Androtion was the charge that he was 
 guilty of such practices as disabled him from speaking in public.** 
 The numerous offences included under the term dcreiSeta were 
 naturally the cause of much litigation.*^ The term was so wide in 
 its application that it was comparatively easy to accuse persons 
 for violating the law in this regard. The defendant had the religious 
 prejudices of the jurors against him. The fact that in addition 
 to the ypa<pri aa-e^elas, there were also ev8ei^is and eiaayyeXla shows 
 the seriousness with which these offences were regarded. The 
 ivdei^Ls a<T€^elas brought against Andocides shows how easy it was to 
 find grounds for accusing some one of impiety, especially if he was 
 
 " Dem. 25, 30; 24, 166. 
 
 38 Dem. 25, 30; 28, 1; 53, 14; 21, 182; 24, 123. 
 
 »»Dem. 24, 105. 
 
 "(Dem.) 53, 1; 58, 10; 21, 103-4. 
 
 « Dem. 25, 30; 21, 103-4. 
 
 « Dem. 25,4. 
 
 « (Dem.) 58, 48 ff. 
 
 " Dem. 24, 123. 
 
 « For full treatment vid. MSL. 368 ff. Cf. also D. and S. Did. des Antiq. 
 
40 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 subject to a decree that rendered him practically an exile. The 
 main charge against Andocides was that he was guilty of impiety 
 because he had attended the Mysteries^® and had entered the Eleu- 
 sinian shrine^^ (at Athens) when expressly excluded by the decree of 
 Isotimides.*^ To this were added the charge that he was guilty of 
 impiety because he had habitually entered holy places from which 
 the decree excluded him,'*^ and that he had exercised the rights of 
 citizen and entered the agora when prohibited by the decree.^" 
 Andocides would have been compelled to stay very close at home to 
 avoid being involved in trouble with some one who might be watch- 
 ing for a chance to attack him in the courts. As he claims, some of his 
 accusers are professional sycophants.^^ Whether they expected any 
 overtures for settlement from Andocides is not known. The suit 
 does show, however, what such men might do with persons less sure 
 of their cases than Andocides. 
 
 The indictment of Socrates on the charge of impiety is too 
 familiar to be discussed. Crito anticipates criticism on the part of 
 Socrates' friends for his failure to prevent the trial of the case.^^ 
 Presumably one method of doing this would have been to buy off 
 the accusers. The friends who were ready to spend money and if 
 necessary to lose their whole fortunes to get him out of prison were 
 surely equally ready to prevent the trial. ^^ Socrates himself, however, 
 would most certainly have absolutely refused to consent to any such 
 arrangement, just as he did refuse to leave prison. 
 
 Some opportunity for blackmail was offered by threats of evSet^ts 
 against exiles who returned before their term had expired and against 
 those suspected of homicide. "EvSei^ts and aTaycoyr}^^ are mentioned 
 as means of procedure much used by sycophants like Menecles, 
 Aristogiton and Theocrines.^^ The aTaycoyr) could offer but few chan- 
 
 « And. 1, 3. 
 " (Lys.) 6, 42. 
 " And. 1, 71. 
 " (Lys.) 6, 9. 
 »» Ibid. 6. 9, 33. 
 " And. 1, 92, 99-100. 
 « Plato Crito 45 E. 
 " Ibid. 45 B. 
 
 '* Vid. Lipsius A. R. 317 ff. for full discussion of the relation of these forms of 
 procedure to one another. 
 
 66 Dam. 25, 78; 39, 14; (58, 45). 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS ' 41 
 
 ces, but since the two procedures are so much alike and so often men- 
 tioned together it is natural to speak of both of them as favorites 
 with sycophants. The cumulative effect gained by accusing syco- 
 phants of using ypaipai, (paaeis, hdei^eis, dirayoiyal may have appealed 
 to those who prosecuted them. 
 
 There was one means of revealing offenders to the authorities that 
 gave the sycophant splendid opportunities for displaying his power. 
 This was fjLrjvvats.^^ In its essentials it seems to have differed very 
 little from eisangelia. It could be brought before the Boule or 
 ecclesia and to judge from the instances of which we have knowledge 
 it was commonly used in case of high treason or sacrilege. But the 
 important difference between it and the eisangelia was that the 
 lj,rivvTr]s was not required to do more than merely lodge information. 
 He need not act as prosecutor before the courts unless he wished. 
 This was a natural provision since the ixrjvvrrjs might be a metic," 
 a slave,^^ or an accomplice who turned state's evidence.^' It was 
 customary to reward him with money or if he was a slave with 
 freedom.^" Since the use of ixi]vv(n% seems to have been made in 
 most instances in times of great excitement, and when the state was 
 much aroused and eager to punish wrong-doers the sycophant with 
 threats of fxrivvats must have been very successful financially. A 
 brief review of the account given by Andocides of the situation after 
 the Mutilation of the Hermae will show how active informers (firjwTaC) 
 were at that time. 
 
 In an effort to discover the guilty, high rewards were offered for 
 information regarding the perpetrators of the sacrilege; one thousand, 
 and ten thousand drachmae by the ecclesia and the Boul^ respec- 
 tively.^^ Andromachus, a slave, Teucer, a metic, Agariste, the wife of 
 Alcmeonidas, Lydus, a slave all gave information.^^ Only one of 
 these four, Teucer, mentioned the Mutilation.^^ The rest, and 
 Teucer as well, told of other sacriligious occurences, the mock cele- 
 bration of the Eleusinian Mysteries in the homes of prominent fami- 
 
 " Vid. MSL. 330 ff. Cf. DeVos 5. "Sycophanta . . . erat ttoXItvs." In the 
 narrow sense of the term, only, would this be true. 
 "And. 1,15. 
 "And. 1, 11, 17. 
 «» And. 1, 59. 
 •» Ant. 5, 34. 
 «i And. 1, 27. 
 «2 Ibid. 13 ff. 
 « Ibid. 35. 
 
42 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 lies, that antedated the Mutilation, and which might reveal the iden- 
 tity of those who were responsible for the latter sacrilege. Those 
 whose names were given by these informers fled as soon as they could, 
 without waiting for trial. Though Andromachus gave no informa- 
 tion about the Mutilation he received the first prize for being the 
 first to appear and Teucer received the second.^* The information 
 (firiPvaLs) that Dioclides gave to the Boule deserves to be discussed 
 in fulL«8 
 
 He had risen early one morning to go to Laurium to get the 
 money that was due him for a slave that belonged to him and who 
 was working in the silver mines there. The moon was very bright; 
 so bright in fact that he had mistaken the time and risen earlier than 
 he intended, thinking that it was dawn. When he came near to the 
 Propylaeum of Dionysus he saw a large body of men coming down 
 from the Odeum into the Orchestra. He was very much disturbed 
 at the sight and withdrew into the shadow of a column. Most of the 
 men he could recognize in the bright moonlight and he estimated 
 that there were about three hundred of them. At length he went on 
 to Laurium. When he returned the next day he heard of the Mu- 
 tilation of the Hermae. He at once suspected that the men whom 
 he had seen were the guilty ones and saw a chance of receiving the 
 reward that was offered. But his first step was not toward securing 
 the reward offered, but blackmail. When he saw Euphemus the son 
 of Callias sitting in a brazier shop he took him aside to the Hephaes- 
 taeum and told him that he had seen and recognized him and the 
 others the night before and could report their names. He pre- 
 ferred however to be friends with them. Therefore he was ready to 
 keep still if they would make it worth his while. He was no more 
 anxious to get money from the city than from them. After some 
 meetings with the members of Euphemus' family, to which Andocides 
 belonged, he was promised two talents as hush-money. They had 
 however not kept their agreement and therefore he was informing 
 against them. He gave in the names of forty-two men, eight of 
 whom were relatives of Andocides. Two of those reported were 
 members of the Boul^. These were allowed to give bail. But they 
 at once left the city and exposed their bondsmen to the danger of 
 punishment. Andocides, who with the other members of his family 
 was put into prison, finally turned state's evidence and explained the 
 
 «* Ibid. 27. 
 « Ibid. 37. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 43 
 
 Mutilation by showing that it was the work of the club of Euphiletus of 
 which he was a member. He (Andocides) had opposed the deed 
 when it was first discussed, but while he was too ill to leave his bed, 
 the club had committed the outrage under the leadership of Euphile- 
 tus. His story was accepted as true. Dioclides who had been 
 treated as " the savior of the city" was called in and questioned. He 
 soon acknowledged that he had given false information. He had 
 been "persuaded" to do so by Alcibiades of Phege (a cousin of the 
 other and more famous Alcibiades) and Amiantus of Aegina (appar- 
 ently to protect the famous Alcibiades who was in danger of suffering 
 by being identified with the guilty ones.) Dioclides was put to death. 
 
 Even if the story told by Dioclides is entirely fictitious the methods 
 by which he tried to extort two talents from the family of Callias 
 must be regarded as usual. Plutarch in his Life of Alcihiades^^ 
 states that Dioclides' reference to the bright moonlight made all 
 men of understanding cry out upon the thing. It was new moon 
 that night.^^ " But the people were as eager as ever to receive further 
 accusations nor was their first heat abated, but they instantly seized 
 and imprisoned every one that was accused. "^^ The probabilities are 
 that if Andocides had not turned state's evidence Dioclides could 
 have gone on threatening citizen after citizen with information. He 
 had made the number of those whom he said he had seen large enough. 
 After the success of his first information no one whom he threatened 
 would run the risk of allowing his name to be reported. 
 
 The nature of the dokimasia and the euthynae made them 
 unusually good occasions for effective threats of blackmail. Of the 
 four kinds of dokimasiae,^^ that of magistrates offered more chances 
 than the others. Every ofi&cial whether elected by show of hands or 
 selected by lot was forced to undergo this examination before entering 
 on the duties of his ofi&ce.^° The dokimasia might in all cases 
 
 «« Plut, Alcih. 20. 
 
 " Grote {Hist. Greece Vol. VII, 199 note) is of the opinion that Plutarch is 
 wrong. 
 
 «« Dioclides had become the "typical Liar" of his day. Plutarch quotes a 
 few lines from the comic poet Phrynichus that bring this out. 
 "O dearest Hermes! only do take care, 
 And mind you do not miss your footing there; 
 Should you get hurt, occasion may arise, 
 For a new Dioclides to tell lies." 
 «»Vid. Lipsius^.i?. 270. 
 " Arist. Const, of Athens 55, 2. 
 
44 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 eventually come before the courts.''^ In all probability, the same, 
 or nearly the same, questions were asked of all candidates. ^^ After 
 the candidate had answered the questions he introduced witnesses 
 to prove the truth of his statements. The presiding officer then 
 asked, "Does anyone wish to accuse this man?" One needs but to 
 recall the eagerness with which the average Athenian entered into 
 litigation to realize that accusers would not be slow in appearing. 
 To be free from this examination, as were the jurors, was considered a 
 great privilege. This in itself shows to what extent the accusations 
 at the dokimasia were dreaded. The "tLs ^ovXerai Kar-qyopdv^^ did not 
 mean that the accusation should be limited to attacks on the answers 
 that the candidates gave to the questions asked. Mantitheus de- 
 scribes the situation that met the candidate when he says that in 
 dokimasiae one is expected to give an account of one's whole life.''' 
 There was no means of anticipating all charges that might be made. 
 The course that a sycophant would follow would be not to rise up 
 unexpectedly and accuse the candidate. There was nothing to gain 
 for him in that way. He would probably threaten the prospective 
 oflEicial before the examination and let it be understood that he 
 intended to appear at the dokimasia unless he were paid to keep 
 silent. Most candidates would undoubtedly be anxious to buy 
 off accusers both in order to secure the office and to avoid un- 
 pleasant disclosures. ''* After the restoration of the democracy the 
 chances of being threatened with charges at the dokimasia were 
 increased by the tendency to introduce into all trials and especially 
 dokimasiae, accusations of participation in the oligarchy and above 
 "all of some connection with the deeds of the Thirty.^^ The popular 
 jury was naturally ready to reject a man whose past could be con- 
 nected even remotely with that body.''^ In fact the dokimasia was 
 
 '^ For the discussion of the two views on this subject vid. Gilbert 219 (Eng.), 
 and Lipsius op. cit. 271. 
 
 " Arist. Const, of Athens 55, 3; Dinarch. 2, 17; Gilbert loc. cit.; Lys. 31, 1-2. 
 
 "Lys. 16, 9; Lys. 24, 1. 
 
 ^^ It would be dangerous to allow even a groundless charge to come to trial. 
 
 '^ The nn nvrjo-iKaKelv of the Amnesty did prevent law-suits based on accusa- 
 tions of this kind. It could not however prevent the introduction of such matters 
 into trials that dealt primarily with other things. 
 
 " Accusation of participation in the deeds of the Thirty are introduced 
 into all the speeches of Lysias that deal with the dokimasia; Lys. 16; 31, 17; 
 26, 8, 10, 16, 17. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 45 
 
 regarded as the means of keeping out of office those who had abused 
 power under an oligarchy.'''' 
 
 Even greater concern was caused magistrates by the euthynae.''^ 
 The privilege of being avvjrevdvuot, the prized possession of the jurors, 
 was the envy of all magistrates in Athens.^^ The special importance 
 of the punishment of guilty officials is set forth by Demosthenes 
 in his prosecution of Aristogiton.^'' "Through them the state 
 cannot help being either injured if they are vicious or on the other 
 hand greatly benefitted if they are virtuous and choose to observe 
 the laws. ... In like manner the errors of private men do injury 
 not to the multitude but to themselves, whereas those of magistrates 
 and statesmen reach the whole people and therefore Solon ordered 
 that punishments be speedy for official personages and political lead- 
 ers." Timocrates and Androtion are even accused of negligence 
 because in their thirty years of public life they had never seen fit to 
 bear the duties of citizenship properly by accusing officials who did 
 wrong. ^^ Such a sentiment, if it found a response in the hearts of the 
 jurors, would tend to make the euthynae especially searching. 
 
 Officials were not only examined at the end of their term of office 
 but they were compelled to pass in their accounts every Prytany.^^ 
 In addition to this, at the Kvpia kKKhrjcria, the question was put to the 
 assembly as to whether the officials seemed to be doing their duties 
 well.^* This offered any citizen a chance to bring charges against any 
 ofl&cial whomsoever. If these charges were considered serious 
 enough the matter was given over to court for trial. However, to 
 judge from the number of references to the final audit, it seems that 
 it was on that occasion that charges were usually made. Whatever 
 the procedure at the euthynae was it is certain that here too, as well 
 as at the dokimasia, any citizen was given the chance to accuse. All 
 officials whether guilty or not would dread such a public ordeal. 
 The temptation to buy off one's probable accuser would be strong.^* 
 
 '^ Lys. 26, 9. It is possible that a rejected candidate incurred a partial 
 disfranchisement. Vid. Dem. 25, 30; Gilbert (Eng.) 220 n. 41; Lipsius A. R. 
 275-276. 
 
 '* Vid. Lipsius A. R. 286 ff. for discussion of the Euthynae; also Gilbert 
 (Eng.) 227. 
 
 " Ar. Wasps 587 ff. 
 
 «» (Dem.) 26, 1-4. 
 
 81 Dem. 24, 173-74. 
 
 82 Arist. Const, of Athens. 45, 2; 48, 3; LA^sias 30, 5. 
 
 83 Arist. Const, of Athens, 43, 2; 61, 2. 
 
 8* The dread that officials felt over the euthynae is expressed in true Aristo- 
 phanic style by Philocleon's anger at the cock who wakes him too late, "bribed 
 by those liable to account {vtrehdwoi)'" Wasps 101-102. 
 
46 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 One of the most striking examples of the sycophant who extorted 
 money from ofi&cials by threats of accusation at the eathynae is that of 
 Philocrates whose methods have been discussed above. He made a 
 business of extorting money from vTevdvvoL.^^ 
 
 Aristogiton another professional sycophant attacked Demosthenes 
 twice at the euthynae.^^ According to Aeschines, Timarchus extorted 
 money from ofi&cials systematically. "When he became one of the 
 public auditors (Xoyta-Trjs) he did the city a great deal of harm by 
 accepting bribes from such as had been unjust in the conduct of their 
 offices. But he was more active as a blackmailer at the time of the 
 euthynae against those who had done no wrong. "^'^ 
 
 One of the uses for which the sycophant could be employed 
 according to Dicaeopolis was to serve "as a lamp to show up those 
 who are to render their accounts. "^^ It is noteworthy that this is 
 the only field of activity mentioned by name in this connection. 
 The others are all included in tpltttip 8lku)v. In the Knights Cleon 
 is represented as an expert at the business of "picking the ripe 
 virevdvvoL." Like a fig-gatherer he tests with a squeeze which are 
 green and hard, which are ripe and luscious, and which are not quite 
 ripe. Evidently those who are "fully ripe" are the ones worth 
 "pulling" for the money they will pay.^^ 
 
 How common it was to "worry" magistrates at the time of their 
 final audit is shown by the proemium of Aeschines vs. Timarchus. 
 "I have never indicted any citizen, gentlemen, nor worried any of 
 them at the euthynae."^" The insertion of this in a proemium inten- 
 ded to prove non-litigiousness is very significant. It was one of the 
 fields of activity with which the sycophant was naturally connected. 
 
 Private suits (5i/cat) offered the sycophant fewer chances of threat- 
 ening prosecution, since only the person immediately concerned could 
 enter such suits. In spite of this, the active sycophant, who watched 
 his opportunities, found occasions for gain in this field. "In the 
 same way every one has been in the habit of making groundless 
 attacks upon me (/ie avKOipavrtiv). They enter Skat in the interest 
 
 85 Antiphon 6. 43. 
 8« Dem. 25, 37. 
 " Aesch. 1, 107. 
 88 Ar. Achar. 936 fF. 
 
 8^ Ar. Knights 259-60. Cf. ibid. 824. "Whenever you (Demus) are yawning, 
 he nips ofif the tender tips of the audits and bolts them." (Merry). 
 »» Aesch. 1, 1. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 47 
 
 of private wrongs, they make charges in the interest of matters that 
 affect the state, and spend more time in maligning my father than in 
 proving the truth of their affidavit; and they disregard the laws to 
 such an extent that they think it right to exact from me penalty for 
 the wrongs that they say you suffered from him."^^ The nature of the 
 courts made it possible for such attacks to be successful. A profes- 
 sional sycophant, with his expert knowledge of law, could un- 
 doubtedly extort money by threats of well-founded or groundless 
 SUai. The notorious Callimachus was extremely successful in forcing 
 such settlements.^^ 
 
 Cases of felonious wounding (8iKai Tpavfxaros) "seem to have been 
 notorious as instruments of false accusation. "^^ Aeschines charges 
 Demosthenes with having brought such a case against Demomeles. 
 He even says that this was one of his "habitual villanies."^^ In 
 the course of his litigation with Boeotus, Mantitheus was brought 
 before the Areopagus on this charge by Boeotus. The accusation 
 was proved false beyond a doubt. ^^ 
 
 Homicide cases {8Uat. <pbvov) and those allied to them (e.g. <pap- 
 naKcov) could also be the instruments of false accusation. The prose- 
 cution of the choregus by Philocrates was of that character. ^^ Per- 
 haps the most famous case is that in which the sycophant Callima- 
 chus was involved.^'' 
 
 A sycophant could urge into litigation a person who had the right 
 to bring a dUr], by promising his assistance. His financial gain in 
 such cases would be the remuneration that he received for this 
 assistance. Melas persuaded Dicaeogenes to sue for the estate of his 
 adoptive father and then gave him valuable aid when the case came 
 to trial. The agreement in this instance was that he should receive 
 a share of the proceeds if the suit was successful. ^^ A somewhat 
 similar transaction is related in the case vs. Callicles. The latter 
 is said to have stooped to unscrupulous methods in his efforts at 
 getting possession of a farm that belonged to his neighbor, the 
 
 " Isoc. 16. 1-2. The speaker is the younger Alcibiades. 
 « Isoc. 18, 52 ff. 
 «3 Jebb Att. Or. Vol. I, p. 277. 
 9*Aesch. 2, 93; 3, 51. 
 »6 (Dem.) 40, 32. 
 « Ant. 6. 
 
 •^Isoc. 18, 52. Vid. p. 78. Two speeches (3 and 4) of Lysias deal with this 
 crime. Cf. also (Dem.) 59, 9. 
 " Isaeus 5, 7-9, 40. 
 
48 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 speaker. He had brought several suits against the latter or against 
 one of his slaves. He had also "suborned his cousin to claim it." 
 The cousin evidently had legal right to enter the suit.^^ One need 
 not assume that Callicles or his cousin are sycophants. They may 
 have been respectable citizens. But the methods of which they are 
 accused make it clear what unprincipled pettifoggers might do.^^'' 
 
 The Sycophant as an Agent 
 
 The sycophants' field of activity was not limited to such work as 
 they did on their own initiative. Their services were also at the 
 disposal of those who wished to hire them. They could be used as 
 agents for various purposes: (1) to bring suits against personal or 
 public enemies; (2) to introduce laws and decrees; (3) to act as advo- 
 cates; (4) to serve as witnesses; (5) to bribe juries and ecclesiasts; 
 (6) to use undue influence on officials; (7) to do work of more or less 
 questionable nature, with which those who employed them did not 
 desire to be openly connected, or which they were unable to do. 
 Not all of these services were in themselves illegitimate or reprehen- 
 sible; it is the professional character of the service that marks the 
 sycophant in public estimation. 
 
 An easy way of avoiding the inconvenience that a public suit would 
 entail was to hire some one to undertake it. This is well illustrated in 
 Apollodorus vs. Nico stratus} The litigious Apollodorus is anxious 
 to prove that the motive for his aToypacpr] against Nicostratus is 
 personal revenge.^ In proof of his assertion he cites the fact that he 
 has brought the suit in his own name. By so doing he exposed him- 
 self to the chances of fine and partial disfranchisement.' This 
 danger he might have avoided for he was not "unable for lack of 
 friends and means to find a person to undertake the information."* 
 
 " 55, 1-2. 
 
 100 DeVos (p. 30) thinks that the dUi] was a common method of attack when 
 possible, but that the ypacprj was preferred because the sycophant gained a greater 
 reputation thereby; the jurors would be more concerned if they felt that the 
 defendant was guilty of some attack "reipubl. instituta." It is undoubtedly 
 true that the sycophant could appeal vigorously to the jurors as guardians of the 
 constitution in a ■Ypa<pri. The nature of the SLkt] was however the chief hindrance. 
 
 1 (Dem.) 53. 
 
 ^ In order to avoid the appearance of sycophancy. 
 
 ' In case he failed to receive the necessary fifth of the votes. 
 
 * Loc. cit. 1 (Kennedy). 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 49 
 
 For such service the sycophant with his expert knowledge of the 
 laws and the courts was the most desirable agent that could be 
 procured. In many cases he would be more likely to be successful 
 in the prosecution than his less experienced employer. - Archedemus 
 was chosen by Crito as his agent because he was Uavos el-Kelv re koI 
 irpa^ai.^ The agent was also, to be sure, in danger of the fine and 
 atimia. But the remuneration that he received for his services as 
 agent would compensate him, in part at least, for the worst that 
 might happen.^ In some ways then it might be more lucrative for a 
 sycophant to act as agent for others than to bring prosecution on his 
 own account. 
 
 The sycophant was apparently most often hired for the bringing 
 of "counter suits."^ These were suits brought against an accuser 
 or against some one who was expected to be an accuser. It was 
 naturally desirable to have good grounds for starting such a case, 
 but an utterly baseless charge might serve the purpose. The leading 
 case of such a counter-suit is that of Philocrates vs. the Choregus al- 
 ready discussed.^ The plaintiff was, as has been shown, a professional 
 sycophant, who made a practice of attacking magistrates at the euthy- 
 nae. A set of officials were facing trial on an eisangelia brought by 
 the choregus. They were very anxious to dispose of the choregus so 
 that he could not appear and accuse them when the case came to trial. 
 Just on the eve of the trial very unusual circumstances made it pos- 
 sible for them to use Philocrates as their agent against the choregus. 
 A young boy, the brother of Philocrates, who was a member of 
 the chorus for which the choregus was responsible, suddenly died. 
 Philocrates and the other relatives did not think of attaching any 
 blame to the choregus. But the officials who were looking for a 
 chance to get rid of the choregus saw an opportunity of doing so now. 
 They employed Philocrates to accuse him of responsibiHty for the 
 
 ^Xen. Mem. II, 9.4. 
 
 « Cf. note 12 below. 
 
 ' Vid. Calhoun, Athenian Clubs in Politics and Litigation, p. 48. 
 
 8 Ant. 6. An effort on the part of Midias to check Demosthenes' prosecu- 
 tion of him is exactly like this, except that he did not employ a professional 
 sycophant in this case. Aristarchus, the son of Moschus, was accused of the 
 murder of Nicodemus of Aphidna. Midias went to the relatives who had begun 
 prosecution and offered them money if they would accuse Demosthenes of the 
 murder. The embarrassment caused by this was considerable. Vid. Goodwin, 
 Demosthenes vs. Midias, notes to 114, 117, for Demosthenes' part in this matter. 
 
50 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 boy's death. Their scheme was unsuccessful however since Philo- 
 crates was unable to get the case entered with the Basileus. 
 
 Several months later, after Philocrates and the choregus had been 
 reconciled, the former was again hired to attack the choregus on the 
 same charge as before. The latter had detected another set of 
 ofl&cials in the embezzlement of public funds. In the hope of es- 
 caping trial they paid Philocrates thirty minae to renew his prosecu- 
 tion of the choregus. The choregus was brought to trial and accord- 
 ingly prevented from prosecuting the officials.^ Philocrates' repu- 
 tation as an unscrupulous litigant and blackmailer was probably the 
 thing that called the attention of the two sets of ofl&cials to the 
 possibility of using him as their hireling. 
 
 Another counter-suit brought by a sycophant as agent is men- 
 tioned in Demosthenes vs. MidiasP In order to create a sentiment 
 against his prosecutor, Midias had hired "that rascal of all work, 
 that ragamufi&n Euctemon" to accuse him of desertion of post. 
 This was solely for effect. Midias did not intend that the case should 
 ever be brought to trial. He merely wanted Demosthenes to suffer 
 from the notoriety that came to him from having his name pub- 
 licly posted as a deserter." In fact Euctemon dropped the proceed- 
 ings and was accordingly partially disfranchised. No statement of 
 the amount paid to Euctemon by Midias is made. However, since 
 the failure to prosecute a public case after it was once begun entailed 
 a fine of 1000 drachmas it is reasonable to suppose that the remu- 
 neration was more than sufi&cient to cover the fine.^^ 
 
 An instance alluded to in the case of Theomnestus vs. Neaera et 
 Stephanus will show with what realism and enthusiasm a hired agent 
 conducted a case.^^ 
 
 Cephisophon and Apollophanes were anxious to secure the ban- 
 ishment of Apollodorus. To bring this about they employed Ste- 
 
 *The prosecution of the oflBcials was however carried on by some one else. 
 Ant. 6,50. 
 
 1" Dem. 21, 103. 
 
 " This was often the purpose of counter suits. Conviction or even the trial 
 of the case was not important. The real effect desired was the discontinuance 
 of the case that the counter suit was brought to meet. 
 
 ^^ Marchant suggests that the 1000 drachmae paid by Callias to Cephisius 
 were intended to defray the possible fine that he might incur if he failed to win the 
 fifth of the votes in the indictment of Andocides. (Notes on And. I, 121.) 
 
 ^ (Dem.) 59,9-10. It will be remembered that the larger part of the speech 
 was delivered by Apollodorus as a-wiiyopos. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 51 
 
 phanus to manage the business. He was notorious for his ability 
 in matters of this kind and would probably be more successful than 
 they. If he was successful they would be saved from any notoriety 
 that might grow out of the case. 
 
 Stephanus accused him of having dealt a blow to a slave woman 
 from the results of which she died. "He suborned some slaves and 
 got them to represent that they were Cyrenaeans, and gave notice 
 to ApoUodorus to appear on a charge of murder in the court of the 
 Palladium. There he conducted the prosecution, and aflEirmed on 
 oath that ApoUodorus had killed the woman with his own hand, 
 imprecating destruction upon himself and his race and his house, 
 affirming facts which never took place, and which he never saw nor 
 heard."^^ 
 
 During the course of the trial his perjury was revealed and the 
 names of his employers disclosed. Needless to say, he lost the case. 
 
 The use of the courts as a political weapon also gave employment 
 to the sycophant who was willing to act as agent.^^ This was es- 
 pecially true in the Fourth Century when the feeling between politi- 
 cal parties was exceedingly strong. A convenient method of dis- 
 posing of a political rival was to bring suit against him on some 
 charge or other. The notorious Aristogiton served as the paid agent 
 of the pro-Philip party in bringing seven ypacpai against Demos- 
 thenes and in two attacks at the euthynae.^^ His Graphe Paranomon 
 against Hyperides after Chaeronea had undoubtedly a similar origin." 
 It is not probable that all the Graphae Paranomon for which the 
 sycophant Theocrines was responsible were brought on his own 
 initiative. The circumstances connected with his attack on the 
 decree proposed by Thucydides make it clear that it was instigated by 
 the party that favored Philip.^^ The fact that Theocrines devoted 
 so much of his efforts to Graphae Paranomon made him a suitable 
 agent for such work. 
 
 It is well known that some of the most bitter political speeches 
 written by Demosthenes were delivered by otherwise unknown speak- 
 ers. As justification of their suits they referred to the personal 
 
 " (Kennedy.) 
 
 »5 For the importance of the courts in the political field, vid. Headlam, Election 
 by Lot, p. 35 &.; Calhoun 98 ff. 
 i« Dem. 25, 37. 
 "(Dem.) 26, 11. 
 " (Dem.) 58, 36 ff. 
 
52 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 enmity that existed between them and their opponents, the targets 
 of Demosthenes' pen. It is hardly likely that in the cases of Eucte- 
 mon et Diodorus vs. Androtion and vs. Timocrates,^^ and that of Euthy- 
 cles vs. Aristocrates,^^ the plaintiffs would have risked prosecution that' 
 entailed so many dangers, if their only compensation was the satis- 
 faction of securing the conviction of their personal enemies. It is 
 far more probable that men in the position in which Euctemon, 
 Diodorus and Euthycles found themselves, let it be known that they 
 could be employed to use their personal enmity^^ as an excuse for 
 attacking certain men or certain policies. This seems to be clearly 
 the case in the suits against Androtion and Timocrates, which really 
 deal with the career of one man, Androtion. In availing himself of 
 the services of such men Demosthenes was merely following the 
 usual custom in Athens.^^ 
 
 Agents were also used to secure the introduction of laws and decrees. 
 Leaders of rival political parties found this a convenient method of 
 securing their desires without appearing in person. Timocrates is 
 accused of having been hired by Androtion and his associates to 
 introduce a law which operated in their behalf .^^ There is no reason 
 for believing the statement false. "His public morality seems to 
 have been such as to fit him for the part of jackal to Androtion."^ 
 He had often before drawn up decrees for hire^^ and was a thoroughly 
 practised politician. He is described as the servant of Androtion 
 and his comrades, and as a professional hireling.^^ 
 
 " Dem. 22 and 24. 
 
 2° Dem. 23. 
 
 "1 "Personal enmity" may become a very flexible term under some circum- 
 stances. 
 
 ^^ For a fuller statement of this attitude of Demosthenes and a justification 
 of the method used, vid. Wayte's intro. to the speeches vs. Androtion and Timo- 
 crates, p. XXXII flf. Cf. also Kennedy intro. p. 164, Vol. Ill, for a statement 
 about Euthycles. 
 
 ^ Dem. 24, 3. The fact that charges of this sort were made at all, shows that 
 the habit was a common one. 
 
 " Wayte intro. xl, w. ref. to 161. 
 
 ^^ Dem. 24, 66, 203. 
 
 ^^Ibid. 14, 158, 200. This Timocrates is undoubtedly the same as the one 
 mentioned in Dem. 39 and 40 as a member of the club of Menecles and 
 Mnesicles. He was one of the associates who gave false testimony for Boeotus. 
 Tliis membership explains much of his activity in litigation. Cf. Schaefer, 
 III, 2, app. p. 218. Calhoun 80, n. 1. He may be the same as the man by 
 that name who acted as a paid supporter of Midias in his litigation with De- 
 mosthenes. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 53 
 
 As advocate (awriyopos) the unscrupulous and litigious person 
 might be a very valuable helper. Such service was more free from 
 danger than any other that he could render in court. The advocate 
 was in no fear of prosecution for perjury as a witness was.^^ How 
 desirable assistance of this kind was, is seen from Demosthenes vs. 
 Midias?'^ The former says that the majority of men are at a dis- 
 advantage when compared with men like Midias. He is rich, and the 
 rich always have plenty of advocates ready to defend them when they 
 are on trial. Although the Athenian law forbade the acceptance of 
 remuneration for service^^ of this kind, it is plain from this that the 
 hiring of advocates was not at all unusual. A statement of Lycur- 
 gus shows how common the practice was.^° "I am surprised most of 
 all at those who are not related by either ties of blood or friendship, 
 but still act as hired advocates from time to time^^ for those who are 
 on trial." Advocacy was apparently becoming professional. 
 
 In the prosecution of Andocides, Cephisius the main speaker was 
 assisted by at least two advocates (avvqyopoi.) who belonged to the 
 cabal against the defendant. Of these Epichares, a professional 
 sycophant, was said to have been paid for his services.^^ "Three 
 talents had been pledged for the 'speakers' if they would save Er- 
 gocles" who was on trial for embezzlement of public funds.^^ These 
 "speakers" were probably prominent demagogues who were willing; 
 to hire themselves out as advocates. That they expected to "save 
 him" by speaking in his behalf is clear from the statement that they 
 saw the temper of the jurors and feared to appear in court. 
 
 " A litigant who was unable to manage his own case, either because of 
 inexperience or inability in legal affairs, was permitted to ask the court to allow 
 his friends to assist him. Such assistants were termed awiiyopoi. For complete 
 statements about "advocates" vid. Bonner, Evidence 11-12, 82; cf. also Calhoun, 
 p. 85 fif.; vid. also p. 64 below for this activity of sycophants. 
 
 "Dem. 21, 112. 
 
 » (Dem.) 46, 26. 
 
 »" c. Leoc. 138. 
 
 ^1 Whether det means "always" or, as often, "from time to time" it indicates 
 a marked tendency towards professionalism. 
 
 ^^ 1. 101. Advocates are suggested in And. 4, 15. "Furthermore he is not 
 undefended (^p7;/xos) nor e{)a5Ur]Tos, since, owing to his wealth, he has many who 
 will come to his aid." Cf. also (Dem.) 44. 3, where the opponents are accused of 
 hiring advocates. 
 
 " Lys. 29.6. 
 
54 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 Hired witnesses were even more common than hired advocates. 
 According to Demosthenes the rich were at no loss for witnesses, 
 just as they were at no loss for advocates.^ 
 
 Polyeuctus, Timocrates and Euctemon were paid witnesses in the 
 employ of Midias against Demosthenes, in addition to those that his 
 club furnished.^^ Onetor is said to have supplied funds to his brother- 
 in-law Aphobus for bribing witnesses.^® Demosthenes accuses Aes- 
 chines of using funds that he received from Philip of Macedon in 
 hiring men to give testimony for him." 
 
 Many of these hired witnesses probably gave testimony only on 
 some particular case and never appeared as witnesses again. They 
 were descending to the methods of the sycophant for that occasion 
 only. There were some however who made a practice of acting as 
 witnesses and were virtually professionals. Such were the members 
 of the clubs of Menecles and Mnesicles and of Melas. They gave 
 testimony for their own associates when it was needed and undoubted- 
 ly were at the service of others who wished to hire them. Melas 
 and his club gave financial support and their services as witnesses to 
 Dicaeogenes on the understanding that they receive a share of the 
 estate for which he was suing, if he was successful.^^ 
 
 Naturally purchased testimony was as a rule perjured. Most of 
 the professional witnesses must have been in danger of a Si/ctj xl/evdofiap- 
 Tvploiv. Conviction on this charge meant a fine and possibly a partial 
 disfranchisement. Three convictions resulted in complete atimia.^^ 
 In spite of this there can be no doubt that the amount of perjured 
 testimony in Athens was very large, even if we allow for exaggeration 
 on the part of the orators in regard to it. Much of this must have 
 been supplied by paid witnesses.*" 
 
 The bribing of jurors and ecclesiasts was often accomplished 
 through paid agents. In fact there existed a class of men who, 
 whether they engaged in other kinds of practices common to syco- 
 phants or not, had become known as professional jury-bribers and 
 
 ^ Dem. 21, 112. Xen. Mem. IV, 4, 11 ijadricrai, ovv -n-uTrore fj.ov rj rpevdo/iapTvpovvTos 
 fj avKo<pavTovvTos • • • ] 
 
 3« Dem. 21, 139. 
 
 3« Dem. 29, 28. 
 
 37 Dem. 19, 216. 
 
 3* Vid. Section on Clubs and Combinations of Sycophants, p. 63 ff. 
 
 39 Vid. Bonner Evidence p. 91, note 9, w. ref. cited. Cf. CI. Phil. Vol. XI, 365, 
 CaUlOUn 'E7rta-K?ji/'is and the AUri xpevSop.apTvpiuv. 
 
 *" Cf . Calhoun Athenian^ Clubs, p. 77 ff. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 55 
 
 bribers of ecclesiasts.'*^ Such professionals could accomplish the 
 desired results so much more easily than inexperienced men that they 
 must have been in great demand when anything of that sort was to be 
 done. Xenotimus*^ and Nicostratus^ are the best examples of this 
 profession. The former was available for other kinds of question- 
 able work. He is described as the one who "corrupts laws, bribes 
 juries, outrages magistrates and is the cause of all sorts of evil." 
 The litigious Callimachus found him a suitable assistant in con- 
 nection with one of his false accusations.*^ He had entered suit 
 against a man in violation of the Amnesty. The defendant entered 
 the plea that the case was not maintainable. The natural course for 
 Callimachus to follow was to bring a dkr} ^pevSofxapTvpio^v against the 
 witness that the defendant produced in support of his plea (Trapaypacpr}). 
 But he had no confidence in his case and feared that he would lose 
 the accusation for perjury and be fined. He therefore, with the assis- 
 tance of Xenotimus, persuaded the magistrate to let him avoid the 
 usual procedure and bring a new suit against the defendant on the 
 same charge as before. 
 
 An incident somewhat similar to this is narrated in Epichares vs. 
 Theocrines.^^ The father of the latter used the services of Ctesicles, 
 the metic, a \oyoypa(pos, who was in charge of the case of his opponent, 
 to avoid paying a debt that was due the state from a court judg- 
 ment and to prevent the introduction of his name as a state debtor. 
 
 There were many questionable transactions with which a more 
 or less prominent Athenian would not care to be connected openly. 
 He might be unable to accomplish the matter by his own efforts, or 
 he might prefer to keep in the background because of the stigma 
 attached to participation in the affair. For such a task the sycophant 
 was valuable. His unscrupulousness would permit him to go to any 
 extreme to carry a matter through, and his familiarity with the tricks 
 of litigation enabled him to manage the legal side if any trouble of 
 .that nature arose. 
 
 *' Ibid. p. 75 S. 
 
 «Isoc. 18, 12. 
 
 *'Aesch. 1, 86. Cf. Calhoun Athenian Clubs, p. 76. 
 
 «Isoc. 18, 11 ff. 
 
 ^ (Dem.) 58, 19. So Nicostratus (Dem. 53, 14) was accused by ApoUodorus 
 of having joined the enemies of ApoUodorus and obtained a judgment against 
 him "through Lycidas the miller." Sandys remarks, "This Lycidas was either a 
 merely nominal accuser or possibly a venal arbitrator." 
 
56 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 Bankers seem to have found considerable use for such agents. 
 Pythodorus was in the regular employ of Pasion.^^ He secured 
 patrons for his employer's bank and introduced them to him. He 
 "would do and say anything for Pasion."*^ It is very probable that 
 it was with his assistance that Pasion succeeded in tampering with the 
 contract that he and the stranger from the Pontus had made and 
 deposited with a third party .^^ That he would not hesitate to lend his 
 efforts to such a deed is shown by the fact that he had at one time 
 broken open the voting urns and changed the names of those nomi- 
 nated for judges in a dramatic contest.^^ 
 
 Phormio, Pasion's successor in the banking business, employed 
 Stephanus as his "agent."'^*' On one occasion, when Phormio's 
 ships were detained in Byzantium, Stephanus went there and pleaded 
 Phormio's cause against the Chalcedonians. This use of an assis- 
 tant to represent a merchant in foreign parts was customary. Aris- 
 tophon was hired by Demon and his business partner to transact 
 business for them in Cephallenia when the ship on which they had 
 loaned money was in danger of being kept from returning to Athens.^^ 
 Such service as this is entirely proper, and no one could afford to 
 render it without remuneration. But the fact that Stephanus was 
 prosecuted for bearing false witness in the interest of Phormio, and 
 charged with stealing a deposition also in his employer's interest 
 shows that he was thoroughly unscrupulous.^^ So also Aristophon 
 is called one of ixoxBripwv avdpdoirwv who hang about the Peiraeus wait- 
 ing for employment of this sort^K His real character is shown by 
 the fact that he sold out his employer. 
 
 When Socrates' friends were endeavoring to induce him to break 
 prison and leave Athens they did not intend to conduct him out of 
 Attica personally.^^ They planned to use for this purpose the ser- 
 vices of men expert in such work, and who were willing to consider 
 the slight compensation they received sufficient gain for any difficulty 
 that might arise. Trouble from the ever watchful sycophants was 
 expected. Crito contemplates buying these off. No doubt their 
 agents v/ould be prepared to manage this for them.^ 
 
 « Isoc. 17, 4. <' Ibid. 33-34. 
 
 'Ubid. 23. "7^^.33-34. 
 
 " Dem. 45, 64. ^i Dgm. 32, 10-12. 
 
 " Dem. 45, 57-58. " pi^to Crito 44 E-45C. 
 
 " For the use of one sycophant to outwit another vid. Xen. Mem. II, 9. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 57 
 
 The method followed by Callimachus in one of his suits illustrates 
 another use for which men of this character could be employed. 
 Just before the case in question was to come to trial he sent his 
 "friends" (rcov 8e XP^IJ-^^^^ Tivks) around to talk to the defendant and 
 frighten him into making a settlement by emphasizing the dangers of a 
 trial and the ability of the plaintiff. The term "friends" is very 
 elastic. These men must have been of the same character as Calli- 
 machus even if they were personal friends or club members. 
 The phraseology implies that these methods were frequently used to 
 influence defendants. Professional sycophants probably resorted 
 to such means often in order to extort money. They would find it 
 exceedingly easy to employ other sycophants to assist them in this 
 way.^^ 
 
 Even "information" could be purchased. The notorious Dioclides 
 was hired to make his famous nrjvv(n% during the excitement following 
 the mutilation of the Hermae. The remuneration must have been 
 high. Otherwise he would not have risked the dangers of false infor- 
 mation.^® 
 
 An agent was employed most often, no doubt, to manage some 
 particular case. Under some circumstances however, the necessity 
 might arise of having a permanent assistant of this sort. Such a 
 situation is described by Xenophon." 
 
 Crito, the old friend of Socrates, had found that it was impossible 
 for a man of means to live at Athens without continual danger of 
 law-suits.^^ Socrates advised him to secure the services of a good 
 "watch dog" who would keep him free from the attacks of these 
 wolves (sycophants). Acting on this suggestion they looked for a 
 trustworthy agent, and found one in the poor but able Archedemus.^^ 
 
 55 isoc. 18, 9-10. 
 
 5« And. 1. 65. 
 
 " Xen. Mem. II, 9. 
 
 58 Crito was but one of the many aTvpaytioves who found life in Athens 
 unbearable due to the troubles caused by the sycophants. 
 
 59 Marshall (Notes ad loc.) suggests that this was probably the Archedemus 
 who took such an active part against the generals after the battle of Arginusae 
 (Xen. Hell. I, 7, 2.). This is a plausible suggestion. His ingenuity and ability 
 certainly fitted him to be a prominent demagogue. 
 
 There is nothing in Crito's use of Archedemus, or in the latter's management 
 of Crito's affairs that is reprehensible. For that reason it is but fair to admit 
 that while employed by Crito he was merely employing the tricks of a sycophant. 
 It was, however, his reputation for shrewdness in legal trickery that made him 
 
58 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 He was glad to become Crito's agent. In fact he was but one of 
 many who would have been ready to serve Crito in this way. His 
 method of defending his employer was to turn the sycophants' arts 
 back on them. He succeeded in discovering misdeeds of which he 
 could accuse them, and hunted up their personal enemies to help 
 him in his attacks. Then when one of them opened suit against 
 Crito he started a counter suit against him on the basis of the infor- 
 mation he had already gathered. This scheme so dismayed the 
 sycophants that they were willing to drop their prosecutions of Crito 
 and settle on any terms that Archedemus might name, even if this 
 meant the paying of money. He forced the sycophants to pay for 
 immunity just as blackmailers did. He was so successful that Crito's 
 friends asked for the loan of the "watch-dog" to protect them too. 
 Glad to favor Crito, whom he considered a valuable patron, Archede- 
 mus gave them his services and so Crito and his friends lived ev ■fiavx'-V- 
 
 Xenophon's description of the situation makes it plain that 
 Archedemus was at any time ready to use his art for the interest of 
 Crito and his friends. In this sense it can be said that he was em- 
 ployed by Crito as his regular and permanent agent. The method 
 by which Crito kept him in his service is interesting. He did his 
 utmost to make him feel friendly towards him. He sent him all 
 sorts of produce from his farm, invited him to the sacrifices that he 
 celebrated and "paid him similar attentions." Undoubtedly he 
 received money for his services too. Archedemus felt highly honored 
 by the attentions of Crito. In fact he asserted, when taunted about 
 his servility, that he preferred to be the hireling of such xpwtoI. 
 
 Pythodorus*'' and Stephanus^^ seem to have been regularly em- 
 ployed agents as Archedemus was. Stephanus was apparently very 
 familiar with the duties that such an agent of a banker would have. 
 He had been the employee of another banker Aristolochus before he 
 was hired by Phormio.^^ 
 
 The employing of an agent was however not without its dangers. 
 An unscrupulous person, after becoming familiar with his employ- 
 er's business and after learning his weak points was in a position to 
 
 the logical candidate for the position of "watch-dog." To the Athenian his position 
 as the paid employee of Crito was enough to confuse him with the ordinary 
 sycophant. 
 
 '"Isoc. 17, passim. 
 
 •1 Dem. 45, 64 et passim. 
 
 •2 Dem. 45, 63. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 59 
 
 turn on him and attack him, just as the sycophants that he was 
 attempting to avoid. This was one of the objections that Crito 
 ofifered to Socrates' suggestion of hiring a "watch-dog," and partly 
 explains Crito's anxiety in keeping Archedemus friendly to him.^^ 
 There can be no doubt that this was a problem that faced many 
 wealthy employers. The sycophant Aristophon became a turn- 
 coat against the interests of Demon,^ and Aristogiton is described 
 as an unreliable employee who was ready to sell himself to the other 
 side.^5 
 
 Clubs and Combinations of Sycophants 
 The importance of Athenian Clubs in the legal and political field 
 has been adequately discussed by Calhoun.^ He has shown how the 
 members of these organizations assisted their associates in law-suits 
 by "taking advantage of the opportunities which the Athenian court 
 system afforded."^ Roughly speaking this aid to litigants was of 
 two kinds, money contributions^ and personal service.* The latter 
 was rendered in many ways. 
 
 Two effective methods of using the courts to aid their friends were 
 "friendly prosecutions" and " counter suits. "^ Out of court, influence 
 was used in creating a sentiment in favor of their comrades or against 
 the opponents, in dissuading accusers and their advocates,^ in ob- 
 taining information regarding the opponent's case or even in measures 
 as violent as assassination. If a case came to trial they were ready to 
 bring influence to bear on ofl&cials and jury, to suppress evidence and 
 give false testimony when necessary or to appear as advocates. 
 
 In the political field club members could aid one another by the 
 use of litigation as a political weapon.'' Their most effective assis- 
 tance however was rendered by the skilful manipulation of delibera- 
 tive assemblies.^ 
 
 w Xen. Mem. II, 9, 3. 
 " Dem. 32, 10 flf. 
 •5 Dem. 25, 46-47. 
 
 ^Athenian Clubs pn Politics and Litigation, (Chicago 1913). DeVos has a 
 rather unsatisfactory chapter on this topic, p. 49. 
 2 Ibid. p. 40. 3 p 43 
 
 * P. 46. 
 
 ^ P. 47-48. Vid. p. 49 above for fuller discussion. 
 « Pp. 56-96. ■> Pp. 98-107. 
 
 » P. 126. 
 
60 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 Since club affiliation was so valuable it was but natural that 
 sycophants also should combine with the purpose of increasing the 
 effectiveness with which they worked individually. Calhoun refers 
 to such organizations of sycophants as ''existing for the profits 
 which they enabled their members to make by various kinds of sharp 
 practice in the courts."^ 
 
 The most important club of sycophants {kpya<jTi]piov avKocpavTcovy^ 
 of which we have any knowledge is that of Menecles and Mnesicles.^^ 
 Four other members are known: Boeotus/^ Timocrates, Crito and 
 
 9 P. 23. 
 
 ^'' Lipsius {A. R. 909, n. 33) disposes of this club in summary fashion: "Nichts 
 mit Hetairien hat das epyaarripiov avKO(pavT<hv bei Demosth. g. Boiot. I 2 S. 995, 8. 
 II 9 S. 1010, 24 (vgl. g. Pant. 39 S. 978, 6. g. Zenoth. 10 S. 885 i. A.) zu tun." 
 That, however, is merely a matter of terminology. A Club of sycophants is 
 undoubtedly somewhat different from an kraipda. in its original and limited 
 sense. In this sense it implies an organization of wealthy and influential (cf . 
 Calhoun 23) men, whom similarity of tastes and politics have drawn together. 
 Social features are prominent; the club oath is of importance; members are 
 approximately of the same age; the club has definite political tendencies. (Cf. 
 Calhoun 10-39.) 
 
 In a combination of Sycophants political convictions, age qualifications and 
 initiations may be absent. Social features probably exist as they might in any 
 organized group. Some form of oath or pledge would be natural. Mutual 
 interest and similarity of tastes there surely would be. They unquestionably 
 have all features essential to making them permanent dubs whether the term 
 kraipda is applied to them or not. (Cf. Calhoun 23, 28, 80.) 
 
 Such organizations of sycophants would rarely, if ever, receive the title of 
 iraipeia in the orators, even if they deserved it. When mentioned at all they are 
 the subject of attack. The speakers therefore refuse to use the more respectable 
 and dignified "Club." They prefer to brand them as "gangs" (kpyaa-rrjpLa). 
 
 The epyaariipiov that Lipsius refuses to consider an kraipeia was undoubtedly 
 a permanent organization. It is described as a well known and definitely or- 
 ganized group of men. Menecles and Mnesicles are its leaders; other members 
 are mentioned; Boeotus aids these men regularly in their suits, just as they aid 
 him; their regular business is litigation. (Calhoun 95 and note.) 
 
 To be consistent, Lipsius should also exclude the dubs of Theocrines and of 
 Melas. To these he raises no objection. Perhaps he distinguishes these from 
 the organization headed by Menecles and Mnesicles because they are not called 
 kpyaarripiov. They appear as ol ixera tovtov (Dem.) 58.7 or ol eKeivov <pi\ot. (Isaeus 5.8) 
 instead. But the kpyaaTr^piov of Menecles and Mnesides has a similar designation, 
 ol irepl Keivov (Dem. 39.13) referring to Menedes. 
 
 Any such distinction based on the mere name seems trivial. Surely de- 
 scription of the activities of a group of men is more valuable in deciding its status 
 than terminology. 
 
 "Dem. 39, 2, 13-14; (40, 8-9). 
 
 " Dem. 39, 2; (40, 9). 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 61 
 
 Promachus.^^ This club was composed of men who made a business 
 of bringing all manner of suits from which they thought they could 
 derive some gain. It so happens that all the definite information that 
 is known of their activity centers about the litigation in which Boeotus 
 was interested. This will be discussed in some detail to show what 
 type of work an apparently typical club of professional litigants did. 
 Boeotus was one of the sons of Mantias and his concubine Piangon.^^ 
 When he came of age he began proceedings against his father with a 
 view to establishing his right to Athenian citizenship. To gain his 
 point he availed himself of the services of the club of Menicles and 
 Mnesicles. It is not certain whether he joined the club at that 
 time or whether he was already a member. It seems fairly clear that 
 the suit was suggested by the club members.^^ Mantias dreaded 
 the trial. He had reason to fear that some of his political enemies 
 would assist Boeotus. Menecles realized that it was possible to 
 take advantage of the reluctance of Mantias by proposing a settle- 
 ment out of court. With the assistance of Plangon he accordingly 
 contrived a scheme to which Mantias blindly consented. Plangon 
 offered to induce her brothers to adopt Boeotus and his younger 
 brother. She further agreed that if Mantias would challenge her 
 before the arbitrator to swear that the young men were his sons, she 
 would decline the challenge. When they came before the arbitrator 
 and Mantias challenged her she broke the solemn oath that she had 
 taken when she made her promise to him and swore that the boys 
 were his sons. This left no course open to Mantias but to ac- 
 knowledge them as his sons and allow them to be admitted to the 
 rights of citizenship. Some time after this Boeotus succeeded in 
 getting the townsmen of Thoricus to register him under the name of 
 Mantitheus.^^ He was dissatisfied with the name his father had 
 given him. Mantitheus was his paternal grandfather's name and 
 had already been given by Mantias to his eldest son by his wife, the 
 daughter of Polyaratus. Boeotus claimed the right to the name on 
 the ground that he was the elder of the two. 
 
 " lUd. (40, 28, 59-60). Cf. Calhoun 28 and 80 w. notes. Calhoun does not 
 mention Promachus. He is however mentioned in (Dem.) 40, 28, along with 
 Timocrates. 
 
 "Dem. 39, 2 £f.; (40, 9-11, passim.). 
 
 « Vid. Calhoun pp. 80, 95-96. 
 
 '«(Dem.) 40, 11; 39, 4-5, 38-39. 
 
62 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 ' After the death of Mantias the inheritance was divided between 
 the two sets of children, and Mantitheus claimed a talent as the 
 marriage portion of his mother." Boeotus entered a counter claim 
 for the same amount, as the dowry of Plangon. The matter went 
 before an arbitrator for settlement. The trial of the case was post- 
 poned so long, owing to delays introduced by Boeotus, that the arbi- 
 trator died before any decision was reached. Boeotus commenced 
 action again and Mantitheus responded with a counter claim. These 
 two suits were arbitrated also. In both Boeotus lost; in the one in 
 which he was plaintiflE he lost by the arbitrator's decision. He did 
 not appeal the case because he knew that his chances of winning 
 were very slight. In the one in which he was defendant he lost by 
 default. The method that he employed in setting this decision aside 
 is a striking example of legal quibbling. He insisted that Mantitheus 
 had not received a decision against him at all. A decision had been 
 given against Boeotus. But he was not Boeotus but Mantitheus.^^ 
 
 The real Mantitheus followed the only course open to him. 
 He brought suit against Boeotus under the name of Mantitheus. 
 Boeotus replied with another counter suit. This time he did not 
 claim the dowry of Plangon. ^^ The arbitrator's decision appar- 
 ently prevented him from doing that. But he trumped up a demand 
 for some other property, in order to discourage Mantitheus by a 
 counter suit. The speech "For the Dowry" was delivered by Man- 
 titheus in the prosecution of this case against Boeotus.^" 
 
 Boeotus' assumption of the name Mantitheus had led to so much 
 inconvenience for the original Mantitheus that he was forced to 
 bring suit against Boeotus in the effort to establish by court decision 
 the sole right to the name.^^ At first Boeotus defended the action 
 and asked for delay. When delay was no longer possible he allowed 
 an award to be given against him for non-appearance. He then got a 
 ruling to set aside this award.^^ 
 
 Another suit was trumped up against Mantitheus in the course of 
 his long litigation with Boeotus. The latter managed to get into a 
 
 " Ibid. 40, 14 ff. Cf. intro. in Paley and Sandys for the various views on 
 all the litigation that was carried on between the two; Cf. also Kennedy's intro. 
 
 ^Uhid. 40, 18. ^Ubid. 40, 3, 17, 18. 
 
 2" Ibid. 40. 
 
 ^' The result is somewhat doubtful. There are reasons for believing that 
 Mantitheus did not win eventually. He nowhere says that he did. Vid. Paley 
 and Sandys intro. to 39, p. 139. 
 
 22 Dem. 39, 37-38. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 63 
 
 quarrel with Mantitheus and so aroused him that they came to 
 blows. He then cut his own scalp and summoned Mantitheus before 
 the Areopagus on a charge of felonious wounding. His intention 
 was to force Mantitheus, by this suit, to quit Athens and drop the 
 case that he was prosecuting against him at that time. The only 
 thing that saved Mantitheus was the voluntary testimony of a 
 physician, who told the court that the schemers had endeavored to 
 induce him to make an incision in Boeotus' scalp. In this way the 
 plot was laid bare.^^ 
 
 Menecles was responsible for the scheme by which Mantias was 
 forced to acknowledge Boeotus as his son; the club members gave 
 false testimony for Boeotus in the suit for the dowry, one of them 
 with regard to two different matters;^* the trick by which Manti- 
 theus was charged with felonious wounding originated with Mene- 
 cles.^^ There is every reason for believing that to a great extent the 
 numerous evasions, delays, quibbles and counter suits that Boeotus 
 introduced during the long litigation between him and Mantitheus, 
 originated with the club. In fact Menecles is accused of being 
 "the architect of all these plots."^^ 
 
 In return for their services as witnesses the club members received 
 like assistance from Boeotus.^^ He regularly aided his associates 
 by perjured testimony. This was regarded as his contribution to the 
 club, like the money contributions made by members of an eranus. 
 
 They may have received a financial benefit also. It is hardly 
 likely that they would have undertaken so much dangerous work 
 without the prospects of a share in the proceeds from the suits when 
 Boeotus was successful. ^^ 
 
 Another combination of sycophants that seems to have been of 
 considerable importance was that of Melas, the Egyptian.^'^ Infor- 
 mation about this club is rather scanty but sheds some light on the 
 methods of these organizations. 
 
 Dicaeogenes, who had inherited one-third of the estate of his 
 adoptive father, was persuaded by Melas, to sue for the entire 
 property. He was in the habit of following the advice of Melas in 
 
 ^3 (Dem.) 40, 32-33. Vid. p. 47 above for discussion of the relatively large 
 number of false accusations of this nature. 
 2" Ibid. 40, 28, 58-59. 
 25 Dem. 39, 18; cf. (40, 28, 58-59.). 
 
 2' Cf. the plan for assistance to be given Dicaeogenes by the Club of Melas. 
 " Isaeus 5, 7-9, 40. 
 
64 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 other matters also. As a business venture, the members of the club 
 of Melas advanced money to Dicaeogenes, either for his own use or 
 for the prosecution of the case. The understanding was that they 
 should share the proceeds if he established his claim. In addition 
 to the financial assistance, the club members furnished him with 
 their services as witnesses.^** They were in the habit of giving false 
 testimony for their own comrades just as the members of the club 
 of Menecles and Mnesecles. They are said to have taken advantage 
 of the city's difficulties to gain other peoples' property.^^ 
 
 No doubt the services of members of these clubs were at the 
 disposal of anyone willing to pay for them. It is not improbable 
 that Melas and Menecles made a business of supplying such pro- 
 fessional witnesses from their clubs.-^ 
 
 The professional sycophant Theocrines belonged to a club that 
 was v.dthout doubt composed of others of that profession. The 
 members were said to follow the same occupations and share the gains.^" 
 In the case of Epichares vs. Tkeocrines they had dissuaded the advo- 
 cates that Epichares had expected to assist him in his prosecution of 
 Theocrines so that he found himself absolutely unaided in the suit. 
 They had also attempted by threats and persuasion (bribery) to 
 dissuade witnesses from testifying. Members of the club were 
 expected to appear as advocates for their associate Theocrines.^^ 
 It would be even easier to render such service than to act as witnesses 
 and no doubt the associates frequently helped each other in this way. 
 Professional advocates as well as professional witnesses could there- 
 fore undoubtedly be obtained from the clubs of sycophants.'^ 
 
 28 Ihid. 7, 40. For the thought cf. Isoc. 15, 241. 
 
 =9 Cf. Calhoun p. 80-81. 
 
 '" (Dem.) 58, 39-40. De Vos is not familiar with the best known clubs of 
 Sycophants but he does devote some space to this one in his dissertation, in the 
 chap, on "Consociationes." p. 49. 
 
 '^ Ihid. 4, 7, 42. It is said that Demosthenes was one of those who had 
 withdrawn his promised assistance, because he saw that the prosecution had been 
 begun and that in this way he was relieved from the attacks of Theocrines. The 
 latter had apparently been harrassing Demosthenes v/ith threats of prosecution. 
 The accusation that Demosthenes had left Epichares unaided may be true. 
 Cf. Calhoun p. 53. 
 
 ^2 For fuller discussion vid. section on "Sycophant as Agent p. .53." Cf. also 
 Calhoun 85-87. It may be that the club to which Pantaenetus belonged was a 
 Club of Sycophants. Their methods correspond to the methods of these organi- 
 zations and they are referred to as kpyaarijpLov twv awearuTcav (Dem. 37, 39). 
 The language used implies that they were assisting him as advocates and 
 witnesses. (Dem. 37, 48). 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 65 
 
 The language of the orators leaves no doubt as to the existence of 
 professional jury bribers. The best known examples areXenotimus 
 and Nicostratus.^^ The former is also described in no uncertain 
 terms as a fit tool for all sorts of underhanded dealings. Nicostratus 
 was also a professional briber of ecclesiasts. In the bribing of jurors 
 or eccleisasts it is evident that one or two men would be unable to 
 do effective work. The task required organization, and it is fair to 
 assume that such men as Xenotimus and Nicostratus belonged to 
 combinations that were willing to sell their services as bribers. These 
 organizations may very well have engaged in other lines of sycophancy 
 also. 
 
 There was another club the members of which could be hired to 
 act as agents. The language employed in describing the combina- 
 tion, kpyaarripLOV ixoxdrjp^v avdpdoiroiv avvecTTrjKOTOOv, suggests that this 
 work was usually of questionable character.^* This particular or- 
 ganization was apparently extremely well known in Athens. Its 
 members hung around the Peiraeus looking for employment. They 
 were familiar with the business of the city and especially with the 
 foreign trade carried on in the Peiraeus. The only member of this 
 combination whose name is known is Aristophon. He had achieved 
 notoriety in the management of the case of certain Miccalion. He 
 was later employed by Demon, the uncle of Demosthenes, and his 
 business partner, to represent their interests in a difficulty that had 
 arisen about a ship that was carrying a cargo on which they had 
 loaned money. The vessel was on its way back to Athens from Sicily. 
 After barely escaping shipwreck due to the rascality of Zenothemis 
 the supercargo, and Hegestratus the shipowner, it arrived at last in 
 the harbor of Cephallenia.^^ There Zenothemis tried to induce 
 the authorities to send the vessel to Massilia on the ground that he 
 came from there and the cargo belonged to him and should go there. 
 It was at this juncture that Demon and his partner in some way 
 
 ''Vid. Section on "Sycophant as Agent" pp. 54-55. Isoc. 18, 11-12; Aesch. 
 1, 86. Cf. Calhoun 75 ff.; 118. 
 
 '* Dem. 32, 10-11. Calhoun refers to this combination as an "organiza- 
 tion of grain dealers and traders in the Peiraeus, who took part in litigation on 
 occasion." (P. 95) It is not necessary to suppose that they were merchants. 
 Their familiarity with the business can be otherwise explained. Merchants 
 and other business men who invested their money in "bottomry loans" woiild 
 always need agents. Such could be supplied from men who studied the condi- 
 tions in the sea trade, and who were in no sense merchants or traders. 
 
 ^ Dem. 32, 4 ff. 
 
66 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 learned of the danger to their investment. They hired Aristophon 
 to go to Cephallenia and see that the vessel was sent back to Athens. 
 He was successful. But when the vessel reached Athens it was found 
 that he had sold himself to the other side. For, supported by Aris- 
 tophon, Zenothemis laid claim to the grain that the vessel brought, 
 saying that he had loaned money on it to the owner Hegestratus. 
 It seems that Aristophon, ever alive to the chances of making money 
 by his tricks, had discovered the difficulty in which Zenothemis 
 found himself when the ship was sent back to Athens, and suggested 
 to him the course of action that was followed. It is doubtful if 
 Zenothemis, who was guilty of trying to sink the vessel, would have 
 gone to Athens if he had not attached to himself this sycophant. 
 The latter saw a chance of making a second gain out of the matter. 
 He had certainly been paid before he left Athens to act as Demon's 
 representative. He is said to be the manager of the whole scheme 
 that Zenothemis put into operation when he arrived in Athens.^^ 
 As Zenothemis was a foreigner^'^ he would probably need assistance 
 at every turn, and the aid that Aristophon was able to render was 
 very essential. Demon and Protus, the man who had borrowed the 
 money with which the cargo had been bought in Sicily, were forced 
 to eject Zenothemis from possession of the grain.^^ He then brought 
 suit against each of them separately. Aristophon and Zenothemis 
 had been trying all the time to come to terms with Protus. He 
 held out against them until he saw that the drop in the price of 
 grain would make his profits small even if he won in the suit that 
 Zenothemis had brought.^^ Then he compromised the matter and 
 consented to let the judgment be given against him by default. He 
 must have been paid for this concession. This arrangement was 
 without doubt planned by the sycophant and Zenothemis. They 
 saw that it would be excellent evidence to use in the case against 
 Demon if they could point to the failure of Protus to appear and 
 defend himself in a similar case. 
 
 Agoratus and Theocritus who worked together as agents for the 
 pro-Spartan party at Athens in 403 B.C. may have belonged to a 
 combination like this one. The language used in describing their 
 relationship with one another suggests close affiliation.^^ 
 
 ^Uhid. 11, 24. 
 
 " Cf. Dem. 32, 5, 8, 29. 
 
 "8 Ibid. 24-26. 
 
 '' Lys. 13, 19 and passim. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 67 
 
 Nothing could be more natural than such combinations of syco- 
 phants. There was a natural bond of sympathy between men of 
 this type who made it their business to prey on society. The super- 
 ior advantages gained by combination would soon tend to make 
 them pool their interests. The resulting organization might be of 
 more or less permanent nature. The clubs of Menecles, and of 
 Melas were clearly permanent organizations.^'' The features com- 
 mon to other clubs may or may not have been present. They 
 would of course have no political tendencies.'*^ Some of the social 
 features seem to have been common. The club of Menecles and 
 Mnesecles held revels in the house of Boeotus^^ and that to which 
 Theocrines belonged kept feasts and sacrifices.^^ 
 
 Temporary cabals were, of course, equally effective for the prose- 
 cution of some particular case. The alliance of Callias, Meletus, 
 Agyrrhius, Cephisius and Epichares against Andocides is the best 
 known. Of these, Epichares, at least, was a professional sycophant. 
 The methods of this combination were exactly like those of the clubs 
 that have been discussed. One man, Cephisius, was chosen to lodge 
 the endeixis; the others, and perhaps Cephisius too, contributed 
 money to assist in the prosecution. CalHas gave 1000 drachmae. 
 In addition to the money contributions they assisted Cephisius by 
 acting as witnesses and advocates.^ 
 
 There is nothing to indicate the number of permanent clubs of 
 sycophants in Athens. "There were probably few, but unusually 
 effective, since their services were at the disposal of any one."^^ 
 
 It was natural that these organizations should endeavor to cover 
 up their methods as much as possible. This effort is indicated in 
 Epichares vs. Theocrines. "I fancy however, men of the jury, that 
 you are quite alive to the nature of these men's excuses and their 
 accusations and pretended quarrels. For you have seen them often 
 enough in the courts and on the platform professing to be personal 
 enemies, and then in private following the same occupations and shar- 
 
 « Cf. Calhoun p. 95 and notes. 
 
 « Calhoun p. 23. 
 
 « (Dem.) 40, 57; cf. Calhoun p. 25. 
 
 *^ (Dem.) 58, 40. There may have even been an age qualification. Timoc- 
 rates is mentioned as an age-fellow of Boeotus. (Dem.) 40, 59; Calhoun, p. 28. 
 
 « And. 1, 121. 
 
 ^ Calhoun p. 96. The evidence seems insufl&cient for assuming that the 
 group mentioned in Lys. 24, 19 is an organization of sycophants, as Calhoun does 
 p. 96. 
 
68 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 ing their gains; at one time bespattering each other with the foulest 
 insult and abuse, and in a little time after feasting together and taking 
 part in the same sacrifices."*^ 
 
 The Sycophant Among the Allies^ 
 
 The development of the Athenian Empire increased the number 
 of opportunities that the sycophant had for his activities. He was 
 more successful among the allies than in his attacks on Athenian 
 citizens.^ 
 
 One of the methods employed by Athens in the government of the 
 subject states was to require the allies to come to Athens for legal 
 settlement of disputes.^ The advantages of this for the city are well, 
 if sarcastically, described by the author of the Xenophontic Poll tela: 
 The state received considerable income from the harbor dues that the 
 allies must pay on their ships when they reached the Peiraeus; 
 people who had lodging houses to rent or vehicles or slaves for hire 
 reaped a rich harvest;* since a man would frequently be compelled to 
 stay considerable time in Athens before his business could be finished,^ 
 this form of income was no mean thing; it was moreover an easy way 
 of governing; the demus sat at home and managed its subjects 
 without the necessity of leaving the city. If the allies had been 
 allowed to try cases at home only official representatives of Athens 
 would come into contact with the subjects and they alone would 
 
 « (Dem.) 58, 39-40. 
 
 ^ De Vos 40 ff., discusses this field of activity, but very incompletely. 
 
 2 "Even inhabitants of towns around Athens suffered more than the Athen- 
 ians themselves," De Vos 8. 
 
 ^ (Xen.) Polity of the Athenians. I, 16. 
 
 Athens did not content herself with the legal management of all matters 
 relating to the Confederacy. She gradually drew away from the subject states 
 the jurisdiction in all important cases. The courts in these allied states had 
 jurisdiction only in those cases which affected their own citizens. They could not 
 inflict the death penalty, exile or atimia. Such cases had to be brought to 
 Athens. The courts of the individual states kept only matters of slight impor- 
 tance under their jurisdiction. Minor matters could not, of course, be brought 
 to Athens for settlement, since her courts were too busy. Busolt, Griechische 
 Geschichte, III, 1, 230 ff. 
 
 * Ibid. I, 16 ff. Szanto {Zum Gerichtswesen der Attischen Bundesgenossen. 
 Atken. Mitt., Vol. XVI, 31 ff.) is more optimistic than the author of the Polity, 
 He is of the opinion that the purpose was to give the allies an opportunity to 
 enjoy the blessings of a well developed legal system. 
 
 6 Ibid. Ill, 1. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 69 
 
 receive homage; as it was the allies flattered the ears of the demus 
 in the courts, made every effort to show the people obeisance and 
 were really their slaves.^ 
 
 One of the most important gains that the system brought was 
 the fact that the democracy obtained the chance to lend support to 
 kindred governments in the allied states. There was natural sympathy 
 between the oligarchs in the city and among the allies. A similar 
 sympathy existed between the supporters of democracy.^ So long 
 as the wealthy and oligarchic were influential in the allied states, 
 there was danger of anti-democratic sentiment if not open revolt 
 against Athens. The courts served as a means of checking those who 
 were not "of the demus." In somewhat exaggerated language the 
 writer of the Politeia states that in the courts the Athenians "saved 
 those who were partisans of the demus and destroyed the others."^ 
 
 This attitude could not fail to encourage the sycophant to extreme 
 activity in persecuting the wealthy and non-democratic of the allies. 
 "One might think," says the writer of the Politeia," that it is an 
 advantage for the allies to be wealthy and be able to pay large sums 
 to Athens in the form of tribute. But the demus does not think so. 
 It prefers that the Athenians shall individually have the allies' 
 possessions. If the latter have only what they need for their existence 
 and their business, they are not able to make plots against Athens."® 
 This implies that the individual Athenians were encouraged to 
 extort money from the allies in any way. In such a soil the syco- 
 phant's business would be especially thriving.^" 
 
 Many considerations made it almost inevitable that threats of 
 prosecution against the subject allies would result in the paying 
 of hush-money; the inconvenience entailed by a journey to Athens 
 and the expense of staying there until the case was finished were 
 great. As a result of the congestion of business a suit might be 
 delayed for a long time. In fact the author of the Politeia states that 
 men sometimes waited a year in Athens to get a matter of business 
 settled. This period might be shortened by bribing the ofl&cials to 
 
 ^bid.l, 17-18; 14-15. 
 
 ^ Ibid. I, 14-15. 
 
 8 Ibid. I, 16. 
 
 Ibid. I, 15. 
 
 *" I, 14. Instead of ol ifKkovTis avKotpavTovtnv, Kalinka (notes ad loc.) reads 
 01 irKkoves. If this is right, as it may well be, it implies that the democratic spirited 
 members of the allied states prosecuted the wealthier and oligarchic. 
 
70 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 accelerate the introduction of the case, but this was an additional 
 outlay.^^ At the trial the susceptibility of the jurors to appeals that 
 painted the defendant as anti-democratic was almost insurmount- 
 able. Added to this there would most often be the inability of the 
 foreigner to present his case well and the consequent necessity of 
 hiring assistance in the form of logographers and advocates. 
 
 There are indications also that the treatment of a foreigner was not 
 always fair. Euxitheus when brought to Athens for trial when 
 accused of the murder of Herodes, was not summoned before a 
 homicide court on a Sk?? (povov as might have been expected. The 
 prosecutors used the summary proceedings that were employed 
 regularly against thieves, housebreakers, kidnappers or criminals of 
 that class. Furthermore, although he offered the "sureties required 
 by law, his bail was refused; he was imprisoned. "^^ Such treatment 
 was of course extremely distasteful to the defendant. 
 
 Under such circumstances it would be inevitable that in the large 
 majority of cases a wealthy citizen from an allied state would prefer 
 to settle at once with the sycophant. 
 
 A good example of the activity of sycophants in attempting to 
 extort money from men who would easily fall into disfavor with the 
 Athenian jurors is found in the case of Euxitheus. In the course 
 of his defence he is compelled to say a few words in behalf of his 
 father who had apparently been maligned by the prosecution.^^ 
 He and his father were natives of Mytilene. The latter had remained 
 faithful to Athens at the time of the revolt of Lesbos. He had, in fact, 
 been included in the number of Mytilenean citizens who were allowed 
 the liberty of living on their own land. But he no longer resided in 
 Mytilene. He had moved to Aenos in Thrace. The cause of this, 
 his son assures the jury, was no disloyalty to Athens or his own city. 
 It was his hatred of the sycophants.^^ The meaning of this is clear. 
 Euxitheus' father had been beset by sycophants who accused him 
 falsely of participation in the revolt. He had probably paid hush- 
 money at first. When the situation became unbearable he left 
 Lesbos and went to Thrace, which seems to have been the resort of a 
 number of Athenians also^^ who preferred to live away from the dan- 
 
 »i/6i(i. Ill, 2ff. 
 
 " Ant. S, 16-17 flf. 
 
 " lUd. 74 ff . 
 
 " Ihid. 78. 
 
 " Cf. Section on "Prevalence of Sycophancy" p. 23 ff. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 71 
 
 ger of litigation. There is no reason for supposing that this is a 
 unique case. 
 
 This field of the sycophant's activity receives its share of satire 
 in the plays of Aristophanes. In the Birds, Euelpides and Pisthe- 
 taerus are represented as looking for an ideal city, free from litigation 
 and sycophancy, in which to spend the rest of their days.^^ The 
 Hoopoe tells them that such a place as they describe may be found 
 on the shores of the Red Sea. "Not for me," says Euelpides. "I'll 
 never move to a place on the seashore where any morning an Athenian 
 galley may come with a summoner to take me to Athens." 
 
 The sycophant who appears in Nephelococcygia styles himself 
 ''KXrjTTjp .... vqaKjiTiKos KOI crvKO(pavTr}s." He asks to be equipped 
 with wings so that he may increase his efficiency in summoning the 
 allies to Athens. With wings he could fly off to one of the islands, 
 issue a summons to Athens to one of the allies, fly back to Athens 
 and have the case tried before the defendant arrives. The latter 
 would lose by default and then the "winged" sycophant could fly 
 off to the island and seize his goods before the unfortunate man 
 returned.^^ The exaggeration is patent. But the mere reference 
 to this sort of activity shows that there were numerous KXrjTrjpes 
 vqaiMTiKoi. Aristophanes does not waste his wit on matters of slight 
 consequence. 
 
 The extortion of money from men in the allied states is well 
 described by Aristophanes in the Peace. "They used to harass the 
 wealthy of our allies, attaching to each the imputation that he followed 
 Brasidas. Then you Athenians used to worry the accused man like 
 little dogs. The foreigners seeing the blows with which they were 
 beaten stopped up with gold the mouths of those who did this and 
 made them rich.'"-^ 
 
 The Sausage seller in the Knights is assured that if he attacks 
 Cleon for having accepted bribes he will be the mightiest of the Greeks 
 and rule over the allies, disturbing and shaking (aeioov) them and 
 making much money.^^ 
 
 The extent to which this evil grew is shown by the fact that the 
 plundering of allies by sycophants is regarded as the cause of their 
 revolt. "You all know that in the former democracy, many of those 
 who managed the city's business stole public money, and that some 
 
 " 147-8. " 1422 ff. 
 
 » 638 ff. " 838 ff. 
 
72 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 of them took bribes against your interests and that the sycophants 
 caused the allies to revolt."^" So Isocrates describes the causes that 
 led to the loss of the subject states: "By outraging the allies, and 
 falsely accusing them and driving the best out of their property, the 
 sycophants succeeded in putting them in such a state of mind that 
 they revolted from us and gladly accepted the friendship and alliance 
 offered by the Lacedaemonians."^^ 
 
 2" Lys. 25, 19. " Isoc. 15, 316-318. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 Typical Athenian Sycophants 
 
 It will be interesting to trace the careers of a few notorious 
 Athenian sycophants. One of the most unscrupulous was Agoratus. 
 No act that offered him opportunity for financial gain was too mean 
 for him. 
 
 His public career began in 411 B.C. He was a slave who had 
 gained the citizenship by pretending to have had a hand in the 
 assassination of Phrynichus.^ According to Lysias he had no 
 right to this merit; he had bribed the rhetor in order to get his name 
 inscribed on the stele which was set up by public decree to honor 
 those who had been connected with the plot to remove Phrynichus.^ 
 There is such a decree in existence.^ In form it is a rider to another 
 that votes honors to Thrasybulus for his part in the assassination of 
 Phrynichus. The rider provides, in part, for other honors to the 
 rest of the conspirators. Of these Agoratus is one. Lysias quotes 
 another decree to prove that he is right in his charge of bribery.* 
 It would seem therefore that the bribery had been discovered and 
 another decree passed to cancel the honors conferred by the earlier 
 one.^ Whatever the truth about the matter is, it is certain that 
 Agoratus had succeeded in passing as a citizen. He had spent the 
 years from 411-404 as an active sycophant. He had laid "all con- 
 ceivable indictments" SUaL, jpacpal, aTroypa(paif had been convicted 
 of sycophancy and fined 10,000 drachmae.^ 
 
 A man who claimed citizenship for participation in the blow that 
 broke up the Four Hundred, might reasonably be expected to be 
 democratic in sympathy. But Agoratus was absolutely unprincipled. 
 The claim was made merely as a means of gaining the citizenship. 
 In 404, the Athenians who were anxious to come to terms with 
 Sparta and establish an oligarchy, regarded him as a fit tool for their 
 plans. This shows how prominent he had become in rascality. 
 The use they made of him is interesting. It shows how an unprin- 
 
 ijebb. Att. Or. I p. 269; Lysias. 13, 64, 70-76. 
 
 ^ Ibid., 70-76. The rhetor is probably Diodes. Vid. Hicks and Hill, Crreek 
 Historical Inscriptions, p. 150, 3. 
 
 » C. I. A., i, 59. Hicks and Hill, loc. cil. 74. 
 
 * Lysias 13, 72. 
 
 * Vid. Hicks and Hill, loc. cit. for full discussion. 
 « Lys. 13, 65, 73. 
 
 ' Ibid. 65. 
 
74 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 cipled man, familiar with the courts and legislative bodies, as a 
 sycophant would be, could be employed to do underhanded deeds 
 with which those who hired him were unwilling to be openly identified. 
 
 The first proposition of the Spartans in regard to terms of peace 
 were intolerable to the democrats at Athens.^ Theramenes was 
 despatched to Sparta to arrange for a more favorable peace. While 
 he was gone the partisans of the oligarchy at Athens contrived a plot 
 for removing certain influential democrats who opposed the accep- 
 tance of Sparta's terms. They trumped up a charge against Cleo- 
 phon, packed the court with anti-democratic jurors and condemned 
 him to death. ^ The terms which Theramenes brought back proved 
 still more intolerable to the democratic party. The oligarchs saw 
 that they must remove the objectors before the meeting of the 
 ecclesia that should pass on the Peace. To do this they could go 
 before the senate and give information about those who were creating 
 opposition. But the plot would then have been too clear. So they 
 availed themselves of the services of Agoratus and his friend and 
 boon companion, Theocritus.^" 
 
 Their scheme worked in the following way: They sent Theocritus 
 before the senate.^^ He told that body that he knew of a plot to 
 oppose the peace, but was not in a position to reveal the names of 
 those in the conspiracy since he was a member of the same club 
 as they. He did however accuse Agoratus of being one of the 
 plotters against the peace and intimated that the senate would 
 succeed in getting the names of the others from him. The senate 
 had already been corrupted by the efforts of the oligarchs. It was 
 really a party to their scheme. Behind closed doors it passed a 
 decree for the arrest of Agoratus. A committee of the senate went 
 to the Peiraeus and attempted his arrest. It had already been 
 planned that he should pretend that he was one of the anti-peace 
 party. In this way his information would seem to be forced from him 
 and the oligarchs would not be suspected.^^ 
 
 Accordingly when the committee arrived in the Peiraeus, he 
 feigned alarm and took sanctuary at the altar in Munychia. Some 
 of the democrats who did not know of the plot of the oligarchs and 
 
 ''Ibid. 5-8. 
 "Ibid. 2,-12. 
 ^'>Ibid.l8G.;32. 
 ^Ubid. 21. 
 ^Ubid. 18-22. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 75 
 
 thought that Agoratus was suffering for being one "of the people" 
 went bail for him. The senators took their names and went back to 
 the city. The bondsmen then tried to induce Agoratus to leave 
 Athens: boats were ready; they would all go away until the matter 
 settled down. He steadily refused. The plan of the oligarchs 
 would of course be spoiled if he did not stay and inform. He insisted 
 on appearing before the senate.^^ When he was admitted he pre- 
 tended to turn state's evidence and gave in the names of his bondsmen, 
 the generals and the taxiarchs, as prominent democrats who were 
 opposing the peace.^* Those whose names he gave in were imprisoned. 
 All effective opposition to the oligarchy was removed. Soon Lysan- 
 der arrived in the Peiraeus and Sparta's terms were accepted and 
 the oligarchy was established.^^ Those against whom Agoratus had 
 informed were put to death. He however was tried by the Thirty 
 and released as a friend of the government.^® 
 
 It may be that he was exiled, because he joined the democratic 
 party at Phyle and returned to Athens with them.^^ Sometime after 
 the "return" he was accused of murder by Dionysius, the cousin 
 and brother-in-law of Dionysodorus, who was one of the demo- 
 crats put to death by the Thirty as a result of the information of 
 Agoratus. Our information in regard to his career is found in the 
 speech of Dionysius. 
 
 ^Uhid. 29. 
 '* Ibid. 30. 
 « Ibid. 34. 
 " Ibid. 38. 
 " Ibid. 77. 
 
 CalUmachus 
 
 Callimachus is a good example of the extremely litigious persons 
 that extorted money from Athenian citizens by accusing, or threaten- 
 ing to accuse, them of acts that had been committed before the 
 restoration of the democracy in 403. Such prosecutions were theo- 
 retically prohibited by the Amnesty.^ But even so the Athenians 
 found themselves continually worried by sycophants who made it 
 their business to accuse them of some participation in the oligarchy 
 or especially in the acts of the Thirty. The dread of appearing before 
 a popular court on such charges made blackmail exceedingly success- 
 ful. The extent to which such threats of prosecution were carried 
 
 ' Isoc. 18, 1-2. 
 
76 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 is seen from the fact that a special provision was inaugurated to meet 
 them. On the motion of Archinus a law was passed allowing the 
 person against whom an action was brought in violation of the 
 Amnesty, to make a special plea (Tapaypa4>r]). This Tapaypa({>r} 
 was a plea that the action was not maintainable according to the 
 Amnesty.^ The speech vs. CaUimachus was delivered in support of 
 such a plea. The speaker (unknown) had been maliciously prosecuted 
 by CaUimachus and availed himself of the comparatively new 
 privilege. This speech is the source of our information in regard 
 to this sycophant.^ 
 
 He had been a turn-coat in the time of the Peloponnesian War. 
 To save his property he ran off from Athens and stayed away ten 
 years. When the Thirty came into power he returned, thinking 
 that he could^find favor with them and help himself financially. 
 He remained an oligarch until the day when the Peiraeus party was 
 ready to attack the walls. Then he joined the exiled democrats. 
 When the Spartans blockaded the Peiraeus, he fled to Boeotia, so 
 as not to be found with the exiles if they were defeated.^ In the 
 period following the Thirty, when the "Ten" were in control, he was 
 in Athens. It was then that an incident occurred that provided him 
 with the basis for several vexatious attacks.^ 
 
 One day the speaker (in the Tapaypa(prj) and his friend Patrocles, 
 who was King Archon at the time, were out walking and happened 
 to meet CaUimachus. Patrocles and he were enemies. The former 
 noticed that CaUimachus was carrying some money. He stopped 
 him and accused him of having in his possession money liable to con- 
 fiscation. A dispute arose. Patrocles insisted that the money had 
 belonged to Pamphilus who had left Athens and joined the Peiraeus 
 party. In^the course of the discussion many people rushed up. 
 Among them happened to be Rhinon, one of the Ten. Patrocles 
 immediately accused CaUimachus to him, of being in possession of 
 state money. The matter was taken before the Ten and the BoulS 
 and it was decided that the money was the property of the state. 
 CaUimachus was compelled to surrender possession.^ 
 
 2 Ibid. 3. Vid. Grote Hist, of Greece, VIII. 299. 
 
 • Isoc. 18. Vid. Jebb Aii. Or. II, 235 for question of date. 
 
 * Ibid. AS-i9. 
 5 Ibid. 5 ff. 
 
 'The mere fact that the money belonged to a democrat was sufficient to make 
 them decide thus. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 77 
 
 When the democracy was restored Callimachus very naturally 
 made capital of this matter.^ If the money was really his own it 
 was easy to arouse a democratic jury by representing himself as 
 unjustly used. If it belonged to Pamphilus, who was identified with 
 the exiles, the same course of reasoning was possible. He could 
 dwell on the grasping nature of the money-loving oligarchs. In 
 either case he could make his arguments convincing by representing 
 Patrocles and all concerned as tools of the oligarchs. 
 
 He first brought action against Patrocles and succeeded in 
 extorting ten minae from him.'' He next involved Lysimachus in the 
 affair and secured two hundred drachmae from him. The speaker 
 was the third to be threatened with prosecution. Callimachus let it 
 be understood that he intended to charge him with responsibility for 
 the whole trouble. It was apparently his method to represent each 
 of the men whom he accused as the special tool of the Ten. 
 
 The scheme that he employed in attempting to force the speaker 
 into a settlement is interesting.^ It was no doubt the method he had 
 employed successfully in the other suits, and according to the speaker 
 was common with sycophants. He went around among the crowds 
 and in the favorite lounging places and talked over his troubles. He 
 dwelt in great detail on his mistreatment at the hands of the speaker. 
 Then some of Callimachus "friends" came to the prospective defendant 
 and urgently advised him to settle with Callimachus for a sum and 
 not run the risk of a trial. It was better, they assured him, to pay a 
 little, than to lose the whole sum by a judgment. To influence him 
 they reminded him of the many mishaps that came in the courts. 
 Even with great confidence in the case it was not safe to take the 
 chances of the trial. Although the speaker does not say so, he must 
 have been reminded also of the success that Callimachus had had in 
 the other cases. At last the speaker, was persuaded. He paid 
 Callimachus two hundred drachma.e. To insure safety from future 
 attacks he insisted that there be a witness to the transaction.^ They 
 accordingly submitted their agreement to an arbitrator and he 
 "sanctioned it by his award." But as the speaker had expected, 
 Callimachus did not let the matter rest. He renewed litigation by 
 bringing suit against the speaker for 10,000 drachmae. At the trial 
 
 ' Ihid. 8 ff. Since the suits were private (Skat) there was no penalty for with- 
 drawing the charge after making a settlement. 
 « Ihid. 9 ff . 
 ' This was the regular method of avoiding false accusations. 
 
78 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 the speaker produced a witness to prove that the case was not main- 
 tainable, since the matter had already been settled. The natural 
 course for Callimachus to follow was to accuse this witness of false 
 testimony. He did not do this He knew that he would not be 
 able to prove such an accusation and would be compelled to pay the 
 eTTco/SeXta. He therefore "arranged" it with the magistrate in charge 
 and instead of bringing a SLkt] xl/evdofiapTvpLwv he entered the same 
 suit again. ^'^ For this bribing of the ofScial he used the assistance 
 of Xenotimus. The latter was an expert at breaking laws, cor- 
 rupting jurors, tampering with magistrates and similar deeds. Under 
 the circumstances the speaker let the case come to trial but entered 
 a special plea that it was covered by the Amnesty and was therefore 
 not maintainable. 
 
 According to the speaker the career of Callimachus was one 
 succession of dlKai, ypaipai, false testimony and active participation 
 in suits brought by others of his type.^^ One incident he considers 
 suf&cient to show what sort of man he was.^^ Callimachus and his 
 brother-in-law together trumped up a case against one Cratinus. 
 The latter and the brother-in-law had had a dispute over a piece of 
 land. A fight ensued. The scrimmage became rather general. 
 Afterwards the two schemers hid one of their slave girls. Later 
 they said that she had died from a wound in the head dealt her by 
 Cratinus, and brought a 8iKr] <p6vov in the Palladium against him. 
 He discovered their scheme but let them go on with their case. He 
 knew that they would try some new trick if he exposed them too soon. 
 When the case came to trial the brother-in-law was the plaintiff and 
 Callimachus with thirteen others swore that the girl was dead. 
 Cratinus excused himself from the court, went to the house where 
 the girl was hidden, broke in, took her to the court and showed her 
 alive and well to all present. The plot was so apparent that the 
 prosecution did not receive a single vote from the seven hundred 
 jurors who heard the case. 
 
 Aristogiton 
 All the references^ to this notorious sycophant are in substantial 
 agreement with Demosthenes' description of him as fieaos, reKevToios 
 
 'Ubid. 11-12. The details of this are not clear. Cf. MSL. 844, n. 221. 
 " Ibid. 51-52. The language implies that the cases in which he was usually interest- 
 ed were trumped up, "fx,^' &v awkarriKe." 
 12 53, 54. 
 1 Dem. 25;26; Dinarchus 2; Plut. Phocion. Chap. X. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 79 
 
 Kal TrpwTos of his kind.^ Though of non-Athenian parentage,^ like 
 Agoratus, he had in some way acquired the citizenship. This he used 
 for only one purpose, sycophancy.* He went about like a viper or a 
 scorpion "with his sting uplifted, hastening here and there, looking 
 for some one whom he might bring into a scrape or fasten some 
 calumny upon, and put into alarm, in order to extort money."* 
 
 He is a typical example of a sycophant who had acquired a stand- 
 ing of some importance in the state by his oratory and his activity 
 in the courts and ecclesia. This influence he used however for 
 nothing but base purposes. In the earlier years of his career he seems 
 to have made it his business to attack public men especially.^ By 
 this pretended interest in the people's welfare he had won the title of 
 Kvoiv Tov SrjiJLov.'' Like others of the type he represents, he appeared 
 in the assemblies where public men expressed their opinions and 
 made all manner of audacious charges against them. It seems that 
 he had an orator's power of winning the people to his side. His 
 method was to bawl out in the assemblies: "I am your only well- 
 wisher"; "All these are conspirators"; "You are betrayed"; " My good 
 will is the only thing left you."^ 
 
 Even more effective than this railing in the assemblies against 
 public men, was his prosecution of them in the courts or his threats 
 of prosecution. It is very probable that in many of these attacks on 
 prominent politicians he was acting as the agent of their political 
 enemies. This was true in his attack on Demosthenes at any rate. 
 Hired by the pro-Philip party he had brought seven indictments 
 against him, and twice he had accused him at the euthynae.^ 
 
 He was not, however, a safe man to employ as agent. He would 
 not hesitate to settle up with the man whom he was hired to prosecute. 
 
 2 Dem. 25, 8-9; Dinarch. 2, 1 "He is the worst man in Athens, no rather the 
 worst in the world." Cf. Plut. Phocion Chap. X, 746. 
 
 ^ Dem. 25, 65. At least his mother was not an Athenian; she was sold into 
 slavery upon conviction of undutifulness to her patron. Cf . also 79 and Dinarch. 
 2. 8, 15. 
 
 * His activity in the courts and ecclesia shows that he was a citizen. 
 6 Dem. 25, 52 (Kennedy) cf. Plut. Phoc, loc. cit. 
 
 « Dem. 25, 40-42 states that he has ceased attacking public men, who, he had 
 found, could defend themselves. 
 ' Dem. 25, 40. 
 
 * Dem. 25, 8-9, 64. Cf. Plut. Phoc, loc. cit. where he is described as one 
 "who inflamed" the people to battle and who was a "great man of war" in the 
 assembly. 
 
 » Dem. 25, 37. 
 
80 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 This was apparently a scheme for getting paid twice for the same 
 matter.^" 
 
 After Chaeronea he indicted Hyperides for illegal measures.^^ 
 The decree that Hyperides had moved authorized that all the dis- 
 franchised should be restored to their full rights. The purpose was 
 to enlist as many as possible on the side of Athens. An attack 
 on such a measure by a man like Aristogiton, who himself had often 
 been partially disfranchised because of failure to pay debts to the 
 state, was probably initiated by political opponents of Hyperides and 
 the anti-Philip party. 
 
 Demosthenes cites some instances of his professional success. 
 He accepted a bribe to drop the prosecution of an eisangelia that he 
 had brought against a certain Hegemon and an indictment against 
 the orator Demades. Over Democles he held threats of an eisangelia 
 until he made a settlement with him. In the matter of " the olive 
 dealer Agathon" he caused a great deal of disturbance in the assem- 
 bly. Then he "received something" and kept quiet, even though 
 he was present at the man's trial and acquittal. He seems to have 
 had as a partner in- many of these suits, Philocrates, the Eleusinian. 
 They apparently worked together and shared the gains. ^^ 
 
 Once he had been convicted on the charge of avKocpavHas.^^ Twice 
 he was convicted of illegal measures and in each case condemned to 
 pay a fine of five talents, as large a sum as was ever entered in a 
 graphe paranomon. The first fine he was in no hurry to pay, but 
 kept up his sycophancy until he was forced to make the payment. 
 He delayed payment of the other until it was doubled. He was 
 also indebted to the state 1000 drachmae, as a result of dropping 
 the suit he had begun against Hegemon.^* This debt he also allowed 
 to run longer than the law allowed and it too was doubled. To 
 secure the payment he mortgaged a piece of land to the state. Shortly 
 afterward the mortgage was transferred to his brother Eunomus. 
 The latter agreed to pay the debt by ten yearly instalments. Eu- 
 nomus made two payments. Aristogiton then regarded himself no 
 longer as debtor, on the ground that his brother had been accepted 
 in his place. He proceeded to avail himself of all the privileges of a 
 
 " Dem. 25, 46-7, 39. 
 
 "Dem. 26, 11. 
 
 »2 Dem. 25, 47. 
 
 " Dem. 25, 19. Lipsius A. R. 448. 
 
 " Dem. 25, 19; Dinarch. 2, 12; Dem. 25, 68; Hypothesis 1-2. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 81 
 
 citizen with the full franchise. For this an endeixis was laid against 
 him by Lycurgus^^ assisted by Demosthenes.^^ The latter's speech 
 on this occasion is one of the chief sources of information about the 
 defendant. 
 
 Demosthenes expected that Aristogiton would follow his usual 
 method and threaten him with prosecution for some overt act against 
 the state, in order to arouse the sj^-mpathy of the jurors for himself, 
 and their animosity against Demosthenes.^^ He therefore reminds 
 the jurors that during the last two years, although Aristogiton had 
 been active in the courts and ecclesia and had seen him and Lycur- 
 gus all that time, he had not taken occasion to make any accusations 
 against them. Any threat then in the present trial is either a false 
 one, or else he has been guilty of negligence in the last two years. 
 "But the truth is," says Demosthenes, "that Aristogiton has stopped 
 attacking public men." After a silence of five years, to which he 
 had been condemned, for debt to the state, presumably, he had 
 returned to his usual business. But he then attacked only the 
 poorer speakers and the inexperienced ones."^^ He had learned his 
 lesson. "But he has tasted of the flock that he was supposed to be 
 guarding," says Demosthenes sarcastically, "and has stopped attack- 
 ing the wolves. Dogs that have tasted mutton should be chopped 
 up," He had lost the right to the title of kvcov tov Srifjiov.^^ 
 
 He was apparently incorrigible. After the endeixis had been 
 brought against him he kept up his bawhng and slandering. He 
 attempted to extort money from the generals by threats of prosecu- 
 tion.^^ They refused to give him any. Then he tried to defame 
 them by saying that as far as he was concerned they would not be 
 elected superintendents of outhouses even. All this abuse could 
 have been stopped by money, if they had seen fit to bribe him. 
 He did succeed in extorting some money from certain magistrates 
 elected by lot.^^ Lastly he had tried to confuse the proceedings by 
 publishing false papers.^" The trial went against him and he was 
 
 " Cf. Din. 2, 13. 
 
 " Dem. 25, 14, also Hypothesis. 
 
 " Ibid. 25, 36 ff. 
 
 " Ibid. 38. 
 
 " Ibid. 40-42. (Kennedy) 
 
 2» Ibid. 25, 49-50. 
 
 " They apparently feared the Euthynae. 
 
82 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 convicted. Even then he forced his way into the ecclesia and took 
 his seat on the first bench of the prytanes.^^ 
 
 According to Dinarchus he had spent more time in prison than 
 out of it.^^ This must have been for debt to the state. At the time 
 of his first imprisonment he committed such an outrage that his 
 fellow prisoners refused to associate with him at all.^^ He got into 
 conversation with a newly arrived prisoner and in the course of it 
 stole his pocket-book. When the man tried to get it back a fight 
 ensued. The newcomer was fresh and strong, and Aristogiton 
 somewhat "dried and shrivelled up" because of his long sojourn in 
 the prison. Therefore the former succeeded in getting the upper 
 hand. But in the course of the fight Aristogiton bit off the man's 
 nose. 
 
 At one time he broke prison. He was sheltered and concealed 
 for several days by his mistress, a woman by the name of Zobia. 
 After the authorities had ceased searching for him, she gave him 
 clothing and money and sent him off to Megara. When he had 
 returned and become a "great" man and the woman was in want, 
 he maltreated her. She complained to her friends. At once he 
 took her off to sell her as a slave, and would have done so if her alien 
 tax had not been paid.^^ 
 
 Once Phocion was called to the prison to see Aristogiton. His 
 friends objected to his going. "Where would I rather see Aristogi- 
 ton, than in prison?" asked Phocion.^^ 
 
 His reputation was so bad that when he was drawn by lot for the 
 office of eTLfj,€\r]Tr]s of the Emporium, the officials rejected him at the 
 dokimasia.^^ 
 
 He allowed his father to die neglected in prison and would not 
 even bury him. Against those who did bury him he brought a suit, 
 instead of paying them for their services.^^ He sold his sister to be 
 taken out of the country and did not keep his hands off his own 
 mother.2^ 
 
 ^^ Dinarchus 2, 13. 
 
 ^^ Dinarchus 2, 2. Cf. Hut. Phoc, loc. ciL; Dem. 25, 67. 
 
 " Dinarchus 2, 9; Dem. 25, 60-61 fE. 
 
 « Dem. 25, 56-57. 
 
 2« Plut. Phoc, loc. cit. 
 
 " Dinarchus 2, 10. 
 
 " Dem. 25, 54, 65; Dinarchus 2, 8. 
 
 " Dem. 25, 55. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 83 
 
 His liturgies were (paaeLs, airayoiyal, evSei^eis.^^ 
 
 Some other deeds of villany are mentioned, but the references 
 are too vague to offer definite information. 
 
 The last act of treachery was the one for which he was prosecuted 
 by Dinarchus. He took a bribe of twenty minae from the Persian 
 envoy, Harpalus. On this charge he was condemned by the court 
 and thrown into prison and died there.^^ 
 
 Theocrines 
 
 Theocrines like Aristogiton was an orator of some ability and had 
 attained considerable prominence in the affairs of state. Both he 
 and Aristogiton were really demagogues who used their influence in 
 extorting money from men of prominence, but who did not hesitate 
 to stoop to the means of the ordinary sycophant when it suited their 
 purpose. The case of Epichares vs. Theocrines is full of information 
 about the career of the latter.^ The circumstances that Epichares 
 uses as a basis of the first charge against him, prove him a sycophant 
 beyond a doubt. These circumstances have been related in detail 
 above.2 They dealt with the ipaais that Theocrines had entered 
 against Micion and had failed to prosecute when the latter had made 
 a settlement with him. 
 
 Theocrines seems to have boasted that his work in life was to 
 bring indictments for illegal decrees.^ Like Aristogiton he tried to 
 acquire a reputation for supporting the democracy and chose this 
 way to gain it. The purely mercenary motive that underlay these 
 suits is seen from his attitude at the indictment of the father of 
 Epichares for illegal measures.^ He pretended to be much concerned 
 in securing justice for an orphan. But the case would have never 
 come to trial if the defendant had paid the 1000 drachmae for which 
 
 »« Ibid. 78. 
 
 '^ Dinarchus 2, esp. 1 and 4. 
 
 For other references to Aristogiton Vid. Schaefer Dem. u. s. Zeit. Ill, 296 £.; 
 314. Hermog. deform, orat. I, 296, II, 363. Suidas s. v. Blass. A. B. Ill, 2, 
 251. QuintUian XII, 10, 22. " Quintilian honors him entirely too much when he 
 classes him with Lycurgus and other masters," Thalheim in Pauly-Wiss. s. v. 
 
 » (Dem.) 58, 5-13. 
 
 2 pp. 34 ff. 
 
 » (Dem.) 58, 22-23, 34, 45. 
 
 * Ibid. 31 S. For fuller discussion vid. pp. 36 ff. 
 
84 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 Theocrines was willing to settle and to drop proceedings. No direct 
 financial gains came to him from the conviction that he secured when 
 the case was tried. But he used it as a means of extorting 200 
 drachmae from Polyeuctus whom he indicted for maltreatment of the 
 same orphan whose interest he pretended was the cause of the 
 previous indictment. 
 
 At another time he had indicted Demosthenes for illegal measures 
 and had failed to prosecute.^ Epichares explains the reasons for 
 the dropping of the suit and the manner in which it was done. Some 
 one asked when the case came to trial that it be postponed and gave 
 as the reason for the request the serious illness of Demosthenes. 
 Although the one who made the request took oath that his statement 
 about Demosthenes was true, Epichares states that it could not have 
 been so because Demosthenes was at that time very active in his 
 attacks on Aeschines. Theocrines however consented to the request 
 and let the matter drop, and never renewed the case. It is evident 
 that the postponement had been secured by previous arrangement. 
 From the reference to the sum of money that Theocrines had named 
 as penalty, it is to be inferred that there had been a money considera- 
 tion.^ 
 
 In connection with another indictment of the same kind Theo- 
 crines had received a mina and a half vir^p rod ypriiplatxaTos b ' Avrinkdcov 
 eypa\l/e tols TeveSloLsJ 
 
 Because of the present suit brought by Epichares, Theocrines 
 had been forced to drop an indictment that he had brought against 
 Thucydides and Demosthenes. Epichares expects that he will 
 urge that the suit was brought for that purpose, according to a pre- 
 arranged scheme of the two men who were in danger of conviction 
 if the case against them came to trial. ^ 
 
 Other incidents in the life of Theocrines stamp him as absolutely 
 unscrupulous. His brother had been murdered and instead of prose- 
 cuting the guilty ones, Theocrines accepted a bribe from them.' 
 Before they paid him he kept threatening to accuse Demochares of 
 the crime.^" 
 
 After his brother's death he succeeded in getting himself elected 
 lepoTTOLos illegally.^^ 
 
 5 Ibid. 43. 
 
 • On the settlement out of court by money payment vid. pp. 86-87. 
 
 T Ibid. 35. 
 
 8 Ibid. 23, 36, 43. » Ibid. 28. 
 
 i« Ibid. 29. 11 Ibid. 29-30. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 85 
 
 At the time that his brother was one of the Thesmothetae, Theo- 
 crines acted as his assessor. His actions while in that position were 
 responsible for the suspension of the whole body of Thesmothae. 
 They were reinstated only on condition that Theocrines be no longer 
 used as their adviser.^^ 
 
 His desire for public activity was insatiable. He was indebted 
 to the state treasury 2200 drachmae on three separate fines. Still 
 he insisted on assuming the rights of an hTrlTLfxos. It is very probable 
 that the reputation that he had acquired, of favoring the interests of 
 the people, made the attitude of the state more lenient toward him 
 and that therefore no one had cared to indict him.^^ 
 
 He belonged to a club the members of which had succeeded in 
 buying oflf the advocates and witnesses upon whom Epichares had 
 depended. These same club-members were expected to appear as 
 advocates for Theocrines and had apparently helped him in working 
 out a clever defence. They regularly worked together and shared 
 the gains when there were any.^* 
 
 ^Ibid. 27. '^Ibid. 2, 5, 12, 14, 22. 
 
 " Ibid. 4, 7, 40 ff, Cf. above 64, 67. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 Checks on Sycophancy^ 
 
 The excessive amount of groundless litigation that grew out of 
 the provision e^etvai. tw ^ovKojikvc^ ypkiptadai early demanded some 
 check. With the purpose of discouraging "frivolous and vexatious" 
 prosecutions, general laws were enacted, which affected not only 
 sycophants but all thoughtless or avaricious prosecutors. 
 
 Any man who dropped a public suit after he had started pro- 
 ceedings was fined 1000 drachmae and denied the privilege of bringing 
 a similar suit again.^ 
 
 The professional sycophant Theocrines had violated this law by 
 withdrawing from the prosecution of a ^acris that he had entered 
 against Micion. For the failure to pay the fine that he had thereby 
 incurred he was prosecuted by Epichares. The fine of 1000 drachmae 
 is the only part of the law which receives attention from the prosecu- 
 tor Epichares.^ But the latter may be especially concerned in em- 
 phasizing this, since he is endeavoring throughout the whole speech 
 to heap up the number of fines that Theocrines has incurred. 
 
 Euctemon, the sycophant who had been hired by Midias to bring 
 a false charge against Demosthenes, dropped the prosecution of it 
 after the case had been posted, and thereby "disfranchised himself."* 
 Apparently the full penalty of the law had been applied in his case. 
 
 Although this law worked well in theory its practical value was 
 not very great. References to settlements and compromises are 
 frequent in the orators. Many non-litigious and sincere prosecutors 
 as well as sycophants, were willing to accept money by way of settle- 
 ment, even after the case had been begun. It seems also that under 
 some circumstances, with the "consent of the proper authorities",^ 
 a prosecution that had been started might be discontinued, even after 
 the anacrisis. In fact, several indications point to a general disregard 
 of the law that provided punishment of the man who dropped a 
 case. Reasons for this are not hard to find. Enforcement of the 
 law would be difficult to secure. On whom did the responsibility of 
 
 »DeVos64£E. 
 
 * (Dem.) 58, 6; 21, 103; 21, 47. Cf. Theophrastus Fr. 8; Lex. Rhet. Cant. 
 677, 8. 
 
 » (Dem.) 58, 6 S. 
 *Dem. 21, 103. 
 « Calhoun 58 n. 6, 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 87 
 
 securing the enforcement rest? It is hardly likely that the magis- 
 trate under whom the case had been entered was expected to see 
 that the prosecutor who dropped the suit was punished.^ The man 
 who had escaped trial by paying the prosecutor, would never turn 
 against the one with whom he had settled and accuse him of vio- 
 lating the law. Neither would his friends do so. It is probable that 
 the enforcement depended on the "interest of individual citizens"^ 
 in particular cases. The fact that Theocrines was liable to the 
 penalty of this law was undoubtedly well known before he was 
 brought to trial by Epi chares. But he had been exercising full rights 
 of citizenship until that trial and had not paid the fine. Unless 
 some one who was unusually interested in the enforcement of the 
 laws, or one who for personal or political reasons wished the offender 
 punished cared to bring action to enforce the penalty, there was 
 no special inconvenience entailed. Epichares happened to have per- 
 sonal reasons for desiring to see the penalty applied in the case of 
 Theocrines. He therefore took advantage of the opportunity that 
 was offered anyone and prosecuted him for failure to pay the fine and 
 for exercising full rights of citizenship.^ 
 
 Evasions of the law were also possible. Theocrines is accused of 
 having discontinued a suit against Demosthenes by a device that is 
 said to have been common. When the case came to trial some one 
 requested that it be postponed on the ground that Demosthenes was 
 too ill to attend. Theocrines consented and never renewed pro- 
 ceedings. The language of the passage makes it clear that the scheme 
 was prearranged and that Theocrines had been paid to drop the 
 prosecution.^ 
 
 The failure of a prosecutor in a public suit to receive one-fifth 
 of the votes cast likewise exposed him to the fine of 1000 drachmae 
 and partial disfranchisement.^"^ Aristogition, the notorious syco- 
 phant, had not succeeded in securing the requisite number of votes 
 in one of his many prosecutions.^^ He was accordingly fined and 
 
 * This is the view of Lipsius, A. R. 844. 
 ^ Calhoun 58, n. 6. 
 
 * Cf. Calhoun 58 ff. for discussion and references. 
 9 (Dem.) 58, 43. 
 
 1" And. 4, 18; Lys. 18, 14; Dem. 21, 47; 22, 26-27; 23, 80; 24, 3; (58, 6;) Plato 
 Apol. 36 B. 
 
 " (Dem.) 26, 9 (Kennedy's intro.); The hypothesis (2) states that it was the 
 dropping of his suit against Hegemon that brought the fine. It may well be that 
 he was fined for both. 
 
 L 
 
88 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 partially disfranchised. He disregarded the penalty altogether how- 
 ever. The fine was doubled, because he delayed payment too long. 
 He insisted on exercising all the rights of citizens. For this an indict- 
 ment was laid against him by Lycurgus and Demosthenes. As in 
 the case of the other law, enforcement depended on the activity of 
 individuals.^^ 
 
 Malicious and vexatious SUaL were checked by a provision similar 
 to this. If the prosecutor in a private suit failed to receive one-fifth 
 of the votes cast he was forced to pay the defendant an obol for every 
 drachmae of the amount at which he had assessed the damages in his 
 suit.^^ This cTTcojOeXta affected fewer professional sycophants than the 
 other laws mentioned. Comparatively few of them would be able 
 to use private suits in extorting money. Circumstances happened 
 to make it easy for -Callimachus and some others to ply their trade 
 by this means.^^ 
 
 Efforts of sycophants and other litigious persons to bring suits in 
 violation of the Amnesty of 403 B.C. caused so much additional 
 trouble that a further check was introduced in the shape of the 
 paragraphe.^^ This gave the person who found himself accused 
 irapa tovs opKovs the opportunity of pleading that the case was not 
 maintainable, since it was covered by the Amnesty. The defendant 
 thus had the right to speak first. This privilege he could use in 
 calling the jurors' attention to the Htigious nature of the prosecutor 
 who was violating the Amnesty. He could also present his view of 
 the case proper, for it was expected that the defendant would not rest 
 his case on mere technicalities but would discuss the whole matter.^^ 
 The jurors were naturally unable to make their decision without 
 
 ^^ It is impossible to determine whether the disfranchisement (partial) followed 
 in connection with every ypaifiti or not. The language is sometimes am.biguous; 
 that is, it implies that in a certain case the fine followed but not the atimia, or 
 else that there was disfranchisement but no fine. This is probably due to the 
 fact that the speaker in each case considers one or the other of these things as 
 more important for his purpose. For complete discussion Vid. MSL 952; D. and 
 S. Diet. desAnliq. s. v. ypoapii; Lipsius A. R. 307-308, n. 26; 449; Pollux, VIII, 41. 
 
 Some grammarians were of the opinion that the atimia followed only if a man 
 had lost three public suits, MSL 953. 
 
 " For the question as to what StKoi were liable to kirco^eXia vid. D. and S. 
 Did. des Ant. s. v.; MSL 949 ff. Lipsius A. R. 937. Some of them are 5kij 
 iinTpoirrjs, SIkt) xpews, dUr] irapa^aa-eus ovvOriKdv. 
 
 " Isoc. 18, 1-3. 
 
 « Isoc. 18, 1-3; Aristotle, Const. Ath. 39, 6; Xen. Hell. II, 3, 12. 
 
 "Lipsius A. R. 856. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 89 
 
 taking everything that they had heard into consideration. Their 
 vote on the paragraphe would in most cases be equivalent to a vote 
 on the case proper. If the defendant won the paragraphe the plain- 
 tiff was fined just as he would have been, had he lost the original 
 case; eiro)^e\la if the suit was a SIkt}, 1000 drachmae if it was a ypaiprj}'' 
 
 The leading case of such a paragraphe is the one brought against 
 Callimachus. The latter had been very active in extorting money 
 from men whom he could involve in participation in an incident that 
 occurred just before the restoration of the democracy. The third 
 man from whom he tried to secure a large sum let the matter come to 
 trial and then availed himself of the paragraphe.^^ 
 
 These indirect methods did not succeed in stopping the evil to 
 any considerable extent. There were therefore means provided for 
 attacking the sycophant directly in the courts. Three of these are 
 mentioned by Isocrates in the Antidosis}^ He is devoting consider- 
 able space to attacks on sycophancy and to a description of the 
 seriousness of the evil. To make this most vivid he enumerates the 
 different forms of procedure used against them and the several tri- 
 bunals before which they could be tried. This he does by contrasting 
 provisions against dSiKiy^iara witJti those against sycophancy. "To 
 meet the greatest crimes, they (our ancestors) provided a trial in one of 
 the dicasteries. But against these (sycophants) they instituted ypaipai 
 before the thesmothetae, elaayyeXlaL before the Boule, and rpo^oXal 
 
 " The speaker in the case vs. Callimachus (3) states that the fine was lirw- 
 /3eX£a. This has led to the conjecture that the paragraphe was intended for SUai 
 only. (Lipsius A. R. 858). The explanation may very well be as follows: 
 The plea was intended for both public and private suits. The one used against 
 Callimachus is used in a private suit. For this reason the penalty was the 
 ^TTw/SeXia. If the suit was a public one the fine would in all probability be 1000 
 drachmae. This seems to be the usual fine in such cases, in order to discourage 
 useless litigation. As is usual among the Greeks, only that part of the law is 
 quoted which concerns the case. Vid. D. and S. Did. des Antiq. s. v. irapaypaipri. 
 
 The later use of the paragraphe, though it developed out of the one men- 
 tioned here, did not in all probability have any real effect on sycophancy. 
 
 "Isoc. 18,9 3. 
 
 " Isoc. 15, 313-14. The language of Isocrates seems to indicate that he con- 
 sidered these measures against sycophants very old. They can hardly go back 
 to the period before the growth of the courts and the prominence of sycophancy. 
 It is to assume too much political foresight in the "legislators" of the period 
 before Pericles, to imagine that they foresaw the abuse that would come and 
 legislated against it. The habit of assigning to old legislators the credit for the 
 laws that happen to meet with the speaker's approval is natural and common 
 among the orators. 
 
90 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 before the people, because they thought that those who practised the 
 business exceeded in every branch of villany," 
 
 Of the three measures mentioned by Isocrates, the probole re- 
 ceives most attention from other ancient authorities. Aristotle's 
 statement is the fullest. According to him, in the sixth prytany 
 (Kvpia eKKKriaia) at the same time at which a vote was taken as to 
 whether there should be an ostracism or not, there was offered also 
 the opportunity to bring in TrpojSoXds avKocpavTcov. Six names were 
 allowed to be entered, three citizens and three metics.^" 
 
 Modern scholars are in substantial agreement in regard to the 
 occasions which justified the use of probole against sycophants.^^ 
 Because this procedure is regularly connected with offences that 
 
 20 Const, of Athens 43, 5. ■ 
 
 It will be remembered that the probole was merely an informal preliminary 
 criminal information, brought before the ecclesia. It was intended as a test of 
 public opinion and involved no punishment. Gilbert (303, note) is of the opinion 
 that Aristotle does not mean that ac this time only were probolae introduced, 
 but at other meetings also. The special point is that it happened regularly at the 
 Kiipta kKKXrjcrla. The reason for making the number of metics and citizens who 
 might be reported by means of the probolae equal, is hard to explain. It does 
 not seem reasonable to suppose that metics would have enough chances of using 
 their arts against the people to justify such a provision. 
 
 Sandys (note ad loc.) is of the opinion that the metics had to receive special 
 permission if they wished to accuse a person. This is the usual interpretation of 
 the aSeta which the slave Andromachus and the metic Teucer asked for and re- 
 ceived before they gave information about the Mutilation of the Hermae. This 
 does not seem correct. The more usual meaning of "immunity" fits the situation 
 very well. Both of these men admitted (And. 1, 12, 15) that they had been present 
 at certain mock celebrations of the mysteries. Such an admission was enough to 
 implicate them in the punishment that would come to those against whom they 
 informed. The aSeia was then merely the immunity that was accorded them for 
 turning state's evidence. The chief objection to this interpretation of adeia 
 is, however, that it limits a metic's activities as sycophant to false ixi]vvcns. It 
 may well be that at times of great excitement, such as the Mutilation of the Her- 
 mae, many metics laid false informations. But it is inconceivable that these 
 occasions would be numerous enough to warrant three probolae at the /cupta 'eKKK-qala. 
 There must have been opportunities for metics to extort money by blackmail 
 under more normal circumstances. Melas, the head of an important club of 
 sycophants, is called an Egyptian (Isaeus, V, 9). It may be that metics made 
 use of club-members or hired agents where their machinations demanded the use 
 of the courts. At any rate it is extremely unlikely that any considerable number 
 of metics would have become liable to such procedures as probolae, if they had 
 been compelled to ask for "permission to make accusations." Such an arrange- 
 ment would have proved an invaluable check on all sycophancy. 
 
 21 Lipsius A. R. 214; 448 ff. D. and S. Did. des Ant. s. v. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 91 
 
 affect the people as a whole it is assumed that "probolae against 
 sycophants" would be used only when they were guilty of some overt 
 act against the state, as for instance, deceiving the people by their 
 demagoguery. Justification for this is found in Aristotle. He men- 
 tions the probole against sycophants in connection with those against 
 any one who has deceived the people. Aeschines implies a similar 
 interpretation.^^ He is contrasting <pr]nri and avKo<pauTia. "We call 
 it sycophancy when ... a single individual slanders some one in 
 all the assemblies and before the senate. For such acts probolae are 
 provided. "^^ 
 
 Another reference to this use of the probole, suggests this inter- 
 pretation also. Pollux^^ after mentioning the probolae against those 
 who deceived the people adds "The indictments for sycophancy 
 were probolae also" (Tpo^okal 8e rjcrav /cat at t^s avKocpavrias ypa(pa'i). 
 
 The ypatprj to which Isocrates refers is undoubtedly the ypa<pr} 
 avKOipavrlas mentioned by Aristotle.^^ The circumstances under 
 which this was employed is a matter of some uncertainty. The 
 orators contain no undisputed references to its use. Aristogiton was 
 condemned for sycophancy ((TVKo<pavTlas) , but the procedure by which 
 he was brought to trial is not stated.^^ There is no special reason 
 for assuming that it was not a ypacprj. It may very well be that the 
 probole and graphe were frequently closely connected. The probole 
 was a means of ascertaining the sentiment of the people. If this was 
 unfavorable to the person against whom the probole had been 
 entered, the matter might come before a dicastery for trial. The 
 procedure by which the case was entered in the dicastery was probably 
 the ypatpri avKOipavrlas. This is suggested by the phraseology of Pol- 
 lux. "The ypa(pal avKocpavrias were probolae."^^ This seems to have 
 been the situation in the trial and condemnation of Agoratus for 
 
 22 Aesch. 2, 145. 
 
 23 This definition of sycophancy implies demagoguery, rather than vexatious 
 litigation. 
 
 2* Pollux VIII, 46. Pollux is probably following Aristotle here. 
 
 25 Const, of Athens 59, 3. The speech of Lysias vs. Aeschines, which was 
 entitled by Diog. Laert. Trepi avKo<pavTlas has been proved incorrectly named 
 (Sauppe Or. Att. II, 121.). 
 
 a. Diet, des Antiq. s. V. ypa<pii avKotpavrlas. Pauly-Wiss. s. v. "Seldom used. 
 There was nothing dishonorable about sycophancy as a profession from a political 
 standpoint." 
 
 20 Dem. 25, 19. 
 
 " Lac. cit. 
 
92 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 sycophancy .^^ "sat h t^ bi]H(jo koI ev r^ biKaarriplw (rvKocpavHas avrov 
 KareypcoTe.^' The phrase h tco drjfxc^ implies that the proceedings against 
 him began with a probole; kv re? dLKaaTrjpiu) indicates beyond doubt 
 that there was a court decision.^^ If the ypa(pr] could be used as a part 
 of the proceedings that began with a probole, it must have been used 
 alone also. We can therefore assume that it was used independently 
 against offences of less flagrant nature than those for which probolae 
 were employed. 
 
 Isocrates is the only one who mentiones the eisangelia against 
 sycophants. The vo/jlos eiaayyeXTLKos quoted by Hyperides contains 
 no reference to such a use. It may, however, be included in the first 
 division given by Hyperides.^" Like the probole, the eisangelia 
 against sycophants would most naturally be employed against those 
 offences of sycophants that affected the state. 
 
 According to Pollux, one of the uses of the (paats was to prosecute 
 sycophants.^^ There is reason for doubting this, since no authority 
 of greater reliability mentions such a use. If it is true it was probably 
 employed against those who made a business of attacking merchants 
 and traders by bringing (paaeis against them. This would be an 
 effort to turn their own methods back upon them. It is more 
 probable that the statement is confused and that the cpaais which is a 
 favorite method of attack open to sycophants, is said to be a method 
 of attacking them. 
 
 For the protection of merchants and shipowners, who would be 
 especially exposed to the attacks of sycophants, there was aparently 
 a special law provided. This forbade the use of <p6L(ns against such 
 men unless there were good grounds for believing that the facts 
 charged in the (paais could be established before the court. Accord- 
 ingly, against sycophants who preferred such false charges criminal 
 information (evSei^cs) and summary arrest (d7ra7co7i7) could be em- 
 
 *' Lys. Iv3, 65. Marchant (note on And. 1, 123) is of the opinion that the state- 
 ment irepl Tov o-co/xttTos . . . Kivhvveixroiv refers to a proposed ypa<pii crvKo<pavTlas 
 against the members of the cabal against Andocides. 
 
 '" Commentators do not generally connect the probole and ypa(pii avKotpavrlai 
 but it seems evident that this must have been the relation between them. Cf. 
 Lipsius i4. jR. 451. 
 
 Those who regard the trial by which Agoratus was condemned a ypa(p^ 
 are of the opinion that the suit was n-nrirds. Agoratus was fined 1000 drachmae. 
 Some even infer that the death penalty might be imposed. Cf. Marchant's view 
 about And. 1, 123. 
 
 "o Hyp. IV, 7 fif. »i VIII, 47 £f. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 93 
 
 ployed. Such a provision seems to be justified by the fact that the 
 (paais against shipowners and merchants constituted a serious inter- 
 ference to commerce.^^ 
 
 Members of Clubs certainly found the organizations to which they 
 belonged helpful in protecting them from the attacks of sycophants. 
 
 Some effective means of defeating the aims of sycophants have 
 been mentioned above: Hiring another sycophant; leaving Athens 
 and residing elsewhere; "fawning" on them.^^ 
 
 During the period of the Thirty, two methods were used to rid the 
 state of sycophants. One was a direct attack upon them.^* Such a 
 method could come only under an oligarchy. The sycophant was 
 in a sense a democratic institution. 
 
 The other was indirect. Certain laws, such as those that dealt with 
 inheritance, were the cause of much litigation because of the room 
 for misunderstanding that they offered.^^ These the Thirty an- 
 nulled oTTcos ixi] 27 rots (xvKo<pavTaLs ecpodos. But even such measures 
 would be extremely unpopular with the democracy. They de- 
 prived the courts of too much power. 
 
 So far as can be seen, there were but few cases in which either the 
 direct or indirect methods of punishing sycophants were effective. 
 Only two references to condemnation for sycophancy are found.^^ 
 Somewhat more numerous are the references to the fine and partial 
 disfranchisement incurred by failure to receive at least one-fifth of 
 the votes or by dropping a case that had been begun. But com- 
 pared with the numerous instances in which sycophants engaged in 
 litigation these are very few. This situation is exactly what one 
 would expect to find. There was extreme difficulty in establishing a 
 general charge of sycophancy. In fact it would be practically im- 
 possible to do so unless the sycophant's operations had in some way 
 affected the community at large. Even then the reputation that 
 prominent and eloquent sycophants had gained, of being the "watch 
 dogs of the people" made conviction hard to secure. 
 
 Even when a man incurred the fines mentioned, special action was 
 required to force him to pay and to surrender the privileges which he 
 had forfeited. And as has been shown above such special action 
 
 32 (Dem.) 58, 10. 
 
 3' Vid. pp. 57, 23-24. 
 
 3«Xen. Hellen. II, 3, 38; Arist. Const, of Athens 35, 2-3. 
 
 ^Arist. Const, of Athens, 35, 2-3. 
 
 ^ Dem. 25, 19; Lys. 13, 65. 
 
94 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 was probably only instituted by a person who had some personal 
 interest in securing the enforcement of the law in a particular case. 
 
 A surer means of successful action against a sycophant was to 
 bring suit against him on any sort of charge and then introduce into 
 the accusation extraneous matters dealing with his activity as a sy- 
 cophant.^'^ Such a method would be more likely to affect the jurors. 
 The scheme used by Archedemus in protecting Crito was very effec- 
 tive. He made it his business to hunt up matters of which he could 
 accuse the sycophants and when one of them opened suit against 
 Crito, Archedemus responded with a counter suit that involved the 
 charges that he had found it possible to use against them. The 
 account given by Xenophon of this method implies that Archedemus 
 never failed in stopping blackmail or actual prosecution of Crito.'^ 
 
 The mere loss of a suit, even if it entailed no fine or atimia, was 
 an effective check on a sycophant's operations. Just as the reputa- 
 tion of having won a suit made a sycophant more successful in black- 
 mail, so the reputation of having lost lessened his chances of success. 
 Euxitheus, accused of the murder of Herodes, states that the syco- 
 phants will lose their opportunities for blackmail if the jurors show 
 their power and vote against them.^^ So also Hyperides implies that 
 the business of sycophants' lagged after the conviction of one or two 
 notorious ones.^° 
 
 Elsewhere in the Greek world stringent measures were employed 
 against sycophants. Charondas of Catana in Sicily is said to have 
 provided by law for the public disgrace of those who were convicted 
 of "sycophancy." They were driven about the streets with crowns 
 of tamarisk on their heads, as a sign that they had won the "palm 
 of ill will."4i 
 
 In spite of the numerous methods of meeting the evil sycophancy 
 flourished and the very fact that many different means of combatting 
 it were necessary shows that none of them were very successful. 
 The Athenians were in a measure reconciled to excessive and vex- 
 
 ^ This is what was done against Aristogiton and Theocrines. 
 
 3» Xen. Mem. 2, 9. 
 
 39Ant. 5, 80. 
 
 «IV, 33, 36. 
 
 *i Diod. XII, 12, 1. The remedy that is accredited to Philip of Macedon 
 (Theopompus Fr. 107) is Aristophanic in its preposterous claim on possibility. 
 Every one in his domain who was guilty of false testimony, perjury, professional 
 advocacy or sycophancy was to be forced to go to a city especially prepared for 
 such men. This place he styled UovrjpoimXis. Vid. Suidas s. v. AovXcop irSXis. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 95 
 
 atious litigation as inevitable nuisances.^ Distinction between the 
 sycophant and the good informer was hard to fix. Too stringent 
 measures against those accused or suspected of sycophancy would 
 discourage many well-founded accusations. In the epigrammatic 
 words of Aristophanes, "There is no charm against the sting of a 
 sycophant."*^ 
 
 *2 Cf. Cicero Ros. Am. 20. 
 « Plutus 885. 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 97 
 
 INDEX OF PASSAGES 
 From the orators, historians, Aristophanes and Plato. 
 
 Aeschines 
 I 
 
 Page 
 
 1 ff 2, 3, 21, 22, 46 
 
 44 11 
 
 55 13 
 
 56 13 
 
 58 13 
 
 82 11 
 
 84 12, 17 
 
 85 11 
 
 86 65 
 
 93 14 
 
 99 vii 
 
 107 34, 46 
 
 117 14 
 
 167 13 
 
 170 13 
 
 196 13 
 
 II 
 
 93 47 
 
 145 91 
 
 III 
 
 51 47 
 
 Andocdoes 
 
 I 
 
 Iff 22 
 
 3 40 
 
 4 13 
 
 7 22 
 
 9 14 
 
 11 41 
 
 12 89 
 
 13 41 
 
 15 41,90 
 
 17 41 
 
 27 41, 42 
 
 35 41 
 
 37 42 
 
 59 41 
 
 65 57 
 
 66 11 
 
 71 40 
 
 91 14 
 
 92 40 
 
 99 24,40 
 
 100 40 
 
 101 14, 53 
 
 106 13, 14 
 
 117 22 
 
 121 50, 67 
 
 123 92 
 
 124 13 
 
 II 
 
 6ff 15 
 
 IV 
 1 ; 1 
 
 15 53 
 
 18 87 
 
 Antiphon 
 I 
 
 22 14 
 
 Tetral. 
 A 
 a5ff 33 
 
 V 
 
 8 12 
 
 11 17 
 
 16 70 
 
 17 70 
 
 34 41 
 
 59 22 
 
 60 33 
 
 74 70 
 
98 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 78 23, 70 300 26 
 
 79 13,22 324 vi 
 
 80 94 472 35 
 
 90 12 529 20 
 
 824 46 
 
 838 71 
 
 VI 
 
 12 ff 4 840 35 
 
 16 4, 6 1083 (sch.) 35 
 
 21 4, 5 1256 19 
 
 23 4 1345 14 
 
 34 4,5 1360 15 
 
 36 5 
 
 37 4, 5 Peace 
 
 38 5, 6 
 
 42 5, 6 
 
 43 vi, 6, 46 
 
 49 6 
 
 50 50 
 
 191 21 
 
 505 9 
 
 638 71 
 
 639 35 
 
 Aristophanes ^^"'"^ 
 
 Acharnians 31 v 
 
 819 28 
 
 725 ff 20 873 v 
 
 818 19 885 95 
 
 819 26 900 2 
 
 820 24 908 28 
 
 829 25 914 ff 3 
 
 903 ff 19 936 46 
 
 908 26 946 20 
 
 n- , 970 20 
 
 Btrds 
 
 44 24 Wasps 
 
 147 ff 71 
 
 285 iZ 101 ff 45 
 
 1422 71 145 20 
 
 1432 25 25^ 14 
 
 1451 25 281 ff 13, 23 
 
 287 15 
 
 Clouds 399 17 
 
 207 9 411 14 
 
 474 ff 14 
 
 Ecclesiazusae 488 ff 14 
 
 562 ff 24 505 20 
 
 517 9 
 
 Frogs 556 ff 15, 17 
 
 362 26 564 ff 15 
 
 1146 ff 25 578 ff 17 
 
 587 11,45 
 
 is 620 ff 15, 17 
 
 259 vi, 46 841 ! 32 
 
 261 23, 34 847 ff 18 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 99 
 
 878 18 47 86, 87 
 
 897 20 66 15 
 
 900 14 83 15, 34 
 
 920 18 92 14 
 
 967 ff 15 96 14 
 
 973 18 99 15 
 
 1000 ff 18 103 ff 39, 49, 86 
 
 1091 ff 7 112 ...: 53, 54 
 
 1101 ff 17 114 49 
 
 117 49 
 
 Aristotle ^^g ca 
 
 Constitution of Athens 4 a-, „^ 
 
 7.3 8 154 ...■ ZZZZIZIIZZlS 
 
 8.2 8 160 ; 14 
 
 9.1 1, 8 182 39 
 
 9.2 8 186 15 
 
 24.3 8 193 14 
 
 27.3 9 197 14 
 
 35.3 25,93 209 15 
 
 39.6 88 213 ' ""IIl5 
 
 43.2 45 223 ff 9, 14 
 
 43.5 90 226 11 
 
 45.2 45 
 
 48.3 45 XXII 
 
 55.2 43 52 
 
 55.3 44 4 22 
 
 59.3 91 26 ff ; 87 
 
 61.2 45 46 14 
 
 96 ff 14 
 
 Politics 
 
 1274a 8, 9 XXIII 
 
 Rhetoric 
 1 16 
 
 1 12, 21 
 
 5 12 
 
 20 13 
 
 Demosthenes 65 11 
 
 XIX 80 87 
 
 216 54 100 15 
 
 206 22 
 
 XXIV 
 
 XX 
 
 13 13 
 
 24 15 
 
 .52 
 
 34 15 1 22 
 
 53 11 2 14 
 
 76 13 3 52, 87 
 
 78 11 6 22 
 
 98 14 14 52 
 
 166 17 ^^ 14 
 
 57 14 
 
 XXI 66 52 
 
 4 11 73 14 
 
 7 ff 15 76 14 
 
100 
 
 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 78 14 
 
 87 14 
 
 90 14, IS 
 
 92 11 
 
 105 39 
 
 123 39 
 
 127 13 
 
 136 £f 13 
 
 151 12 
 
 154 14 
 
 158 52 
 
 159 13 
 
 164 14 
 
 166 39 
 
 173 £f 45 
 
 200 ff 13, 52 
 
 XXV 
 
 4 39 
 
 8£E 79 
 
 11 80 
 
 14 81 
 
 19 12, 80,91,93 
 
 30 39,45 
 
 32 13 
 
 36 81 
 
 37 46, 51, 79 
 
 38 81 
 
 40 79, 81 
 
 47 38,80 
 
 49 ff 81 
 
 52 79 
 
 54 ff 13,82 
 
 60 ff 82 
 
 64 ff 79,82 
 
 67 82 
 
 68 80 
 
 76 13 
 
 78 28, 40, 83 
 
 79 ff 13 
 
 83 ff 15 
 
 XXVI 
 
 Iff 45 
 
 9 87 
 
 11 51 
 
 XXVII 
 
 1 12 
 
 53 15 
 
 68 15 
 
 XXVIII 
 1 39 
 
 XXIX 
 
 28 54 
 
 XXX 
 
 1 22 
 
 XXXII 
 
 4 65 
 
 5 66 
 
 8 66 
 
 10 ff 56, 60, 65, 66 
 
 21 ff 14 
 
 24 66 
 
 26 66 
 
 27 13 
 
 XXXIV 
 
 1 22 
 
 38 13 
 
 XXXV 
 
 51 26 
 
 54 14 
 
 56 15 
 
 XXXVI 
 8 13 
 
 36 ff 13 
 
 42 ff 13 
 
 57 ff 15 
 
 XXXVII 
 33 13 
 
 37 13 
 
 38 ff 13, 60, 64 
 
 45 27 
 
 48 15, 64 
 
 52 13 
 
 XXXVIII 
 
 19 ff 15, 27 
 
 25 13 
 
 27 15 
 
 XXXIX 
 
 1 22 
 
 2 60, 61 
 
 3 : 32 
 
 4ff 61 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 101 
 
 13 60 
 
 14 14, 28, 40 
 
 16 ff 13 
 
 18 63 
 
 27 13 
 
 32 ff 63 
 
 35 15 
 
 37 ff 61, 62 
 
 57 13 
 
 XL 
 
 3 62 
 
 5 13, 22 
 
 8ff 60 
 
 9 11 
 
 11 11, 61 
 
 12 22 
 
 14 62 
 
 16 22 
 
 17 ff 62 
 
 28 61, 63 
 
 32 22,47,63 
 
 38 13 
 
 43 22 
 
 50 12 
 
 53 22 
 
 55 14 
 
 57 12,67 
 
 58 13, 63 
 
 59 12, 67 
 
 61 ff 12 
 
 XLIII 
 
 71 27 
 
 XLIV 
 
 3 53 
 
 XLV 
 
 1 12 
 
 6 12 
 
 47 13 
 
 57 ff 56 
 
 63 13, 58 
 
 64 56, 58 
 
 66 13, 15 
 
 77 13 
 
 85 13, 14 
 
 XLVI 
 26 53 
 
 LIII 
 
 1 ' 21, 28, 30, 39, 48 
 
 14 39, 55 
 
 26 ff 29 
 
 LVI 
 
 6 26 
 
 47 15 
 
 LVII 
 34 vii 
 
 LVIII 
 
 4 64 
 
 5 83, 84 
 
 6 26, 34, 86, 87 
 
 7 60,64 
 
 8 26, 34 
 
 10 39, 93 
 
 12 26, 36, 84 
 
 13 26,36,85 
 
 19 55 
 
 22 ff 83,84 
 
 27 85 
 
 28 ff 84 
 
 32 .....35, 36, 83 
 
 34 ff 83,84 
 
 36 51 
 
 39 ff 64, 67, 68, 85 
 
 42 64, 84 
 
 43 84, 87 
 
 45 40, 83 
 
 48 39 
 
 LIX 
 
 9ff 50 
 
 16 31 
 
 52 32 
 
 DiNARCHXrS 
 
 78 
 
 1 79, 83 
 
 2 82 
 
 4 83 
 
 8 79, 82 
 
 9 82 
 
 10 82 
 
 12 80 
 
 13 81 
 
 15 79 
 
 17 44 
 
102 
 
 SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 DiODORUS SiCTTLUS 
 
 XI, 87, 5 7 
 
 XII, 12, 1 94 
 
 HyPERIDES 
 
 I 
 
 Frag. II 12 
 
 2 35 
 
 ' 8 18 
 
 12 38 
 
 III 
 
 23 .'. 14 
 
 32 ff 15 
 
 35 15 
 
 IV 
 
 7 92 
 
 31 13 
 
 32 13 
 
 33 14, 31, 94 
 
 35 27, 29 
 
 36 14,94 
 
 38 14 
 
 ISAEUS 
 III 
 
 46 £E 37 
 
 V 
 
 7-9 47, 63, 64, 90 
 
 8 60 
 
 40 47, 63, 64 
 
 ISOCRATES 
 
 VII 
 
 54 15 
 
 VIII 
 
 130 15 
 
 XV 
 
 8 23, 33 
 
 24 vii, 34 
 
 25 34 
 
 33 33 
 
 142 16 
 
 160 15, 34 
 
 241 64 
 
 313-314 89 
 
 316-318 24, 72 
 
 XVI 
 
 44 
 
 1 ff 47 
 
 XVII 
 
 58 
 
 1 22 
 
 4 56 
 
 23 56 
 
 33 56 
 
 34 56 
 
 42 26,27 
 
 XVIII 
 
 1 ff 75, 88, 89 
 
 3 76 
 
 5 76 
 
 7-10 37, 57, 77, 89 
 
 11 55,65 
 
 12 55, 65, 78 
 
 48 ff. 76 
 
 52 47, 78 
 
 53 ff 78 
 
 XX 
 
 15 33 
 
 XXI 
 
 5 vii, 33 
 
 Lycurgus 
 c. Leoc. 
 
 3 25 
 
 4 1,3 
 
 6 1, 21 
 
 46 12 
 
 52 12 
 
 79 14 
 
 90 38 
 
 91 14 
 
 110 14 
 
 119 14 
 
 127 14 
 
 134 ff 15 
 
 138 53 
 
 139 13, 14 
 
 149 :. 2 
 
 150 15 
 
SYCOPHANCY IN ATHENS 
 
 103 
 
 Lysias XVII 
 
 1 22 
 
 I 
 
 36 9 
 
 43 33 
 
 X 
 
 XVIII 
 
 1 29 
 
 9 23 
 
 14 87 
 
 19 30 
 
 III 
 
 47 
 
 20 .-. 33 XIX 
 
 9 30 
 
 VI 11 15, 29 
 
 9 40 51 30 
 
 33 40 55 22 
 
 42 40 64 30 
 
 54 11 
 
 VII 
 
 1 22 
 
 XXIV 
 
 1 44 
 
 17 34 
 
 19 67 
 
 XXV 
 
 3 vii, 32,34 
 
 16 8 7 14 
 
 XII 
 
 2 21 
 
 3 21, 22 
 
 62 13 
 
 13 13 
 
 19 24, 72 
 
 XXVI 
 
 8 ff 44 
 
 9 45 
 
 XIII 16 ff 44 
 
 Sff 74 XXVIII 
 
 ?-12 74 1 29 
 
 18 74 3 15 
 
 19 66 
 
 22 74 
 
 29 75 
 
 30 75 
 
 32 74 
 
 34 75 XXX 
 
 38 75 5 45 
 
 XXIX 
 
 1 29 
 
 6 53 
 
 8 29 
 
 64 73 
 
 65 31,73,92,93 
 
 70flf 73 
 
 76 ff 73, 75 XXXII 
 
 XXXI 
 
 Iff 21,44 
 
 Iff 22 
 
 Plato 
 
 XVI 
 
 9 44 
 
 12 13 Apology 
 
 17 ZZZZ'ZZ 13, 44 17BC 22 
 
 31 44 20 DE 12 
 
'■^ 
 
 104 SYCOPHANCY 
 
 21A 14 
 
 27B 12 
 
 28A 16 
 
 34C-E 15 
 
 36B 87 
 
 Crito 
 
 44E 56 
 
 45A 36 
 
 45B 40 
 
 45C 56 
 
 45E 40 
 
 Euthydemus 
 290A 13 
 
 Gorgias 
 515E 9 
 
 Laivs 
 
 730D 2, 3 
 
 745A 28 
 
 767C-E 16 
 
 768A 2 
 
 876AB 16 
 
 928BC 28 
 
 937A 12 
 
 938B 14 
 
 949A 15 
 
 Republic 
 340D (sch.) V 
 
 Plutarch 
 Alcibiades 
 20 43 
 
 De Curiositate 
 523 V 
 
 De Exilio 
 11 24 
 
 Pericles 
 9 9 
 
 IN ATHENS 
 
 Phocion 
 10 79, 82 
 
 Solon 
 
 18 1, 8 
 
 24 V, 28 
 
 Timoleon 
 37 : 10 
 
 Theopompus 
 Frag. 107 viii, 94 
 
 Thucydides 
 11,40 1,25 
 
 Xenophon 
 Apology 
 
 4 16 
 
 14 12 
 
 Hellenica 
 
 1,7,2 57 
 
 II, 3, 12 24, 25, 88 
 
 II, 3, 38 25, P3 
 
 Memorabilia 
 
 II, 9, 4 49, 56, 57, 94 
 
 IV, 2, 35 34 
 
 IV, 4, 11 viii, 54 
 
 Politeia 
 
 I, 14 16,69 
 
 1,15 69 
 
 I, 16 9, 68, 69 
 
 I, 17 69 
 
 I, 18 10,69 
 
 III, 1 68 
 
 III, 1-6 9 
 
 111,2 70 
 
 Symposium 
 
 IV, 30 24, 34 
 

 
 ■It^ " H 
 
 ^^^> .#' 
 
 
 
 
 vv^' :m£K'^ %%^ 
 
 '-> G »\ "^^^ 
 
 ,^ -^ ^"^ j' Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
 
 "^ '^ "' .• Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 
 >;.r Treatment Date: ^^ _ gflQl 
 
 PfeservationTechnologies 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
 
 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
 Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
 (724)779-2111 
 
 r.^^V.1- ^ ■> 
 
r. '^^- v' 
 
 :^' 
 
 "'^•^^J^^^^ 
 
 o'^ 
 
 J> "^ct- 
 
 ^^. ^ 
 
 
 r^^.w^J^'^ 
 
 
 A-^' -^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^f 
 
 
 •^ "C' 
 
 
 
 oO 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >- <^^' 
 
 
 
 o. 
 
 ;':\ 
 
 
 X\ '"^ .^' ^1 
 
 
 .<^^