BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Five
Buried within the text of the Demosthenic law are indications that it could not
have been drafted at a single point in time; instead, various clauses point to distinct
periods in time when the law was modified. For instance, the third clause, “should he
corrupt a few men by freely making promises” (diafqei/rh| tina\j e0paggello/menoj),
likely was not drafted before the late fifth century when the verb diafqei/rein was first
used in conjunction with dōrodokia. 39 Similarly, as we saw in Chapter Two, actively
giving bribes was not condemned until about the same time. 40 By contrast, the final
clause on punishment, “let him and his children and property be outlawed” (a1timoj
e1stw kai\ pai=dej kai\ ta\ e0kei/nou), suggests a date prior to the first half of the fifth
century, for it was only during this time that atimia meant ‘outlawry’. Under the later
meaning of atimia as ‘disfranchisement’, the phrase referring to the offender’s property
(kai\ ta\ e0kei/nou) would have been meaningless, for only people, not property, can be
‘disfranchised’ in this way. 41 This clause suggests that a kernel of an earlier law, at least
as old as the first half of the fifth century, is concealed within the law transmitted by the
Demosthenic corpus. 42 Given the necessarily later context for giving bribes and
39 Hashiba (2006: 70n.31) following Harvey (1985: 86-7) suggests a mid-fifth-century date for this
meaning of diafqei/rein, but Harvey’s argument is based entirely on a purported play on words in
Herodotus 5.51, which is dated sometime between the 440’s and 420’s. In fact, this meaning of the verb is
not again attested until the fourth century (e.g. Lys. 2.29, 28.9; Xen. Hell. 7.3.8), and I have already argued
that the Herodotean passage need not connote bribery: see Chapter One above. Harvey (1985: 111)
rightly suggests, however, that the clause containing e0pi\ bla/bh| was added later: see page 124 below.
40 Cf. Kulesza (1995: 36), Hashiba (2006: 69).
41 On the meaning of atimia, see Harrison (1971: 169-76), Hansen (1976: 55-6), MacDowell (1978: 73-5;
1983: 74-6), Maffi (1979), Rhodes (1981: 222 ad AP 16.10), Vleminck (1981), Rainer (1986), Hall (1996:
79-80). Although Thonissen (1875: 214) argues that atimia in Dem. 21.113 could actually entail
confiscation, too, his interpretation has not been followed by others. In fact, Hansen (1976: 88-9) proposes
either to follow Drerup in deleting kai\ ta\ e)kei/nou or to change it to oi( e)c e)kei/nou; similarly, Lipsius (1905-
15: 2.401n.100) deletes the entire penalty clause. Hansen (1976: 55-6) rightly points out that the later
meaning of atimia was broader than ‘disfranchisement’, for atimoi lost all civil rights and all standing
under the law. Nevertheless, without any direct English translation, here and throughout I use the
translation ‘disfranchisement’ to describe the later meaning of atimia.
42 Cf. Hashiba (2006: 71).
235