previous next


Ἐπικράτης), an Athenian, who took a prominent part in public affairs after the end of the Peloponnesian war. He was a zealous member of the democratical party, and had a share in the overthrow of the Thirty Tyrants (Dem. de Fals. Legat. p. 430); but afterwards, when sent on an embassy to the Persian king Artaxerxes, he was accused not only of corruption, in receiving money from Artaxerxes, built also of peculation. (Lys. Or. 27, c. Epicralem, p. 806, &c.) Hegesamder (apud Athen,. vi. p. 251a.) and Plutarch (Plut. Pel. 30) say, that lie so grossly flattered Artaxerxes as to propose that instead of nine archons, nine ambassadors to the Persian king should be annually chosen by the Athenians. Plutarch also says that he did not deny the charge of corruption. He seems, however, to have been acquitted (Plat. and Ath. ll. cc.) probably through the powerful interest possessed by himself and by his fellow criminal, Phormisius. (Dionys. Vit. Lys. 32.) He had been guilty of corruption on a former occasion also, but had been equally fortunate in escaping punishment. (Lys. l.c.) This first offence of his was probably on the occasion when Timocrates the Rhodian was sent by Tithraustes to bribe the Greek states to attack Sparta (B. C. 395); for though Xenophom (Hell. 3.5.1.) asserts, that the Athenians did not receive any money from Timocrates (a statement suspicious on the face of it), Pausanias (3.9.4) has preserved an account that at Athens bribes were taken by Cephalus and Epicrates.

The above statement of the acquittal of Epicrates on the charge of corruption in his embassy to Artaxerxes, seems at first sight opposed to the statementt of Demosthenes (de Fats. Legat. pp. 430), 431), that he was condemned to death, and that he was actually banished. But, in fact, Demosthenes seems to be referring to a distinct and third occasion on which Epicrates was charged with corruption; for in his repetition of the charge there is the important head, καταψευδόμενοι τῶν συμμάχων, of which we find nothing in the oration of Lysias, but which is just the charg e we should expect to be made against the Athenian envoy who took part in accepting the peace of Antaleidas (B. C. 387); and that Epicrates was really that envoy is the more probable from the fact, which is expressly stated, that it was Epicrates who recommended that peace to the Athenians. (Schol. Aristeid. i. p. 283, ed. Dindorf.)

Epicrates and Phormisius were attacked by Aristophanes (Aristoph. Eccl. 68-72, Ran. 5.965, and Schol.) and by Plato, the comic poet, who made their embassy the subject of a whole play, the Πρέσβεις. Both are ridiculed for their large beards, and for this reason Epicrates was called σακεσφυρός. (Comp. Etym. Mag. s.v. Suid. s.v. and s.v. πώγων; Harpocrat. s. v. p. 162, cum not. Maussac. et Vales.; Epist. Socrat. 13. p. 29; Plat. Phaedr. p. 127b.; Meincke, Hist. Cril. Corm. Graec. pp. 182, 183; Bergk, de Reliqu. Com. Att. Aut. pp. 389-394.)


hide Dates (automatically extracted)
Sort dates alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a date to search for it in this document.
395 BC (1)
387 BC (1)
hide References (4 total)
  • Cross-references from this page (4):
    • Aristophanes, Ecclesiazusae, 72
    • Aristophanes, Ecclesiazusae, 68
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 3.9.4
    • Plutarch, Pelopidas, 30
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: