Athenian public finance underwent significant reform in the wake of the financial crisis that accompanied the Social War (357–5). Scholarly analysis of these changes, and of Athenian financial decisions in general, tends to pay little attention to the process of mass deliberation which produced them. Existing work on financial debate concentrates on the availability and communication of technical information, emphasising the control either of professional elites or the collective citizenry.

The evidence of Demosthenes, by far our most important source of actual Athenian financial rhetoric, shows that these models distort the nature of financial deliberation. Moreover, they overlook the key dilemma of financial decision-making in Athens: how to reconcile the conflicting ideological claims of rich and poor, and how to reconcile an ideology of amateurism with an increasing need to concentrate administrative power in financial experts. Far from a sideshow or a hindrance, rhetorical debate was central to successful financial decision-making because it enabled the ideological negotiation of these fundamental conflicts, and so allowed the democracy to adapt to the difficult fiscal conditions of the fourth century.

Part 1 examines Demosthenes’ rhetoric of tax reform in the 350s. Demosthenes defends the traditional notion of taxes on the rich, as a reciprocal exchange of benefactions for charis, against aggressive new initiatives that stressed the fiscal entitlement of the majority in times of need. He does so by associating tax-as-benefaction with other, more popularly compelling examples of reciprocal exchange: between family members, citizens, and elite philoi who are philotimos (‘honour-loving’). In his effort to democratise the elite virtue of philotimia, Demosthenes illustrates the first stage in the eventual re-establishment of honorific language and the ideology of benefaction around this concept.

Part 2 examines Demosthenes’ construction of his authority as a financial advisor in the wake of the unprecedented centralisation of financial responsibility in the theoric treasurer. This presentation is analysed in terms of Demosthenes’ construction (and deconstruction) of moral character (êthos), and his articulation of detailed arguments - both with numbers and without. Whereas rhetorical debate led to changes in the ideology of taxation, the strength of the ideology of amateur government meant that the notion of a single, supreme financial official as a permanent fixture of government was never fully accepted.

Popular ambivalence towards expertise, and anxiety over the danger of rhetorical deception, gave Demosthenes scope to problematise the power of Eubulus, his allies, and by extension Eubulus’ cautious foreign policy. It is within this overarching claim to authority based on superlative moral integrity that Demosthenes also demonstrates his grasp of technical information, and his capacity to combine relevant popular beliefs with specialist knowledge.

Demosthenes ultimately failed to explain how Athens could afford to return to an interventionist foreign policy, but the critical positions he adopts reveal the scope that existed for ideological contest. As such, Demosthenes’ rhetoric not only clarifies the significant changes that took place in the honours system and in financial administration during the 350s, but provides us with a better understanding of the nature of Athenian financial deliberation. Athenians were sensitive to the long-term political consequences of strategic fiscal decisions and were prepared to prioritise these over short-term profit. Athenians also required financial arguments to be intelligible and credible, and so limited the extent to which the superior technical knowledge of orators translated into control over the deliberative process.