BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Five
of what is and is not socially legitimate; and the law is to provide a series of incentives
and penalties that structure how political agents behave. In essence, advocates of anti-
corruption reform argue, by designing the right laws and the right institutions—with
clearly defined norms and stringent penalties to hold officials accountable—a polity can
effectively curb the cancer of corruption. 8
In response to both sets of scholars, however, it is unclear that the Athenians had
such an impulse to define things systematically, let alone to use the law to do so. 9 As we
have seen, the Athenian word for bribery was ‘dōrodokia’, which meant approximately
“the receipt of gifts in exchange for a bad outcome” (dōra + dekomai), yet nowhere was
this ‘bad outcome’ further defined. 10 Even a superficial look at Athenian laws on
dōrodokia confirms this claim, for the offense of dōrodokia is never legally defined
beyond the receipt of dōra resulting in some kind of ‘harm’ or ‘bad’ to the dēmos 11 ; in
any case, those definitions certainly do not amount to “taking gifts [sc. in office],” as
some classicists have tacitly assumed. 12 Nor is dōrodokia the only offense which the
Athenians did not rigorously define. 13 If the Athenians had a more exact understanding
8
See recently Rose-Ackerman (1978, 1999), Klitgaard (1988), Doig (2000), della Porta and Rose-
Ackerman (2002), Johnston (2005).
9
Note, by contrast, how the law code of Zaleucus was famous for its precision in calibrating a different
penalty for each offense: Ephorus FGrH 70 F 139.
10
See above Chapter One.
11
See further MacDowell (1983: 74-6). The law against dōrodokia cited at Dem. 21.113 mentions only
giving or taking “to the harm of the dēmos.” Likewise, the eisangelia against public speakers defines
bribery as taking money and speaking against the interests of the Athenian dēmos (Hyp. 4.8); the graphē
dekasmou simply calls the offense dōrodokia; and apophasis by the Areopagus was based on a public
decree which need not define the offense more specifically than taking gifts “against the country” (kata\
th=j patri/doj, e.g. Din. 1.13).
12
Harvey (1985), Kulesza (1995), Taylor (2001), Hashiba (2006). Harvey’s (1985: 108-13) discussion is
particularly relevant here, as he seeks to differentiate ‘catapolitical’ bribery—i.e. bribery “against the
community”—from other kinds of taking gifts in office. Ultimately, though, he concludes that both
offenses were surely outlawed even though our legal sources consistently refer only to catapolitical bribery.
I differ from his approach in saying that dōrodokia was, and was only, catapolitical bribery.
13
Commonly noted in our ancient sources: AP 9.2, cf. AP 35.2; Arist. Rhet. 1.1354a27-30, b11-16,
1374a8; Pl. Polit. 294a10-295a7; Rhodes (1981: 162 ad AP 9.1). For a good discussion, see Harris (1988:
367-70), Todd (2000a: 26-7).
218