BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Five
these later additions to the law needed to be limited in some way in order to define when
‘receiving’ or ‘giving’ dōra was illicit, the e)pi\ bla/bh| clause—including explicit mention
of harm done to either the dēmos or to an individual—most likely entered the law only at
a later date.
I suggest, therefore, that the original law against dōrodokia read as follows:
e)a/n tij A)qhnai/wn de/xhtai para/ tinoj tro/pw| h@ mhxanh| = h| )ntiniou=n, a!timoj
e!stw kai\ pai=dej kai\ ta\ e)kei/nou.
If some Athenian 49 is bribed by another in any way or manner whatsoever, 50 let him and
his children and his property be outlawed.
Reconstructed so, this regulation was substantively vague: like a number of early
Athenian laws, it essentially outlawed an offense (de/xesqai) that was nowhere explicitly
defined. 51 Given that the law was probably modified at least once at a later time (to add
the didw|,~ diafqei/rh|, and probably e)pi\ bla/bh| clauses), it is possible that one impetus
49
All other instances of the subject “some Athenian” (ti/j 0Aqhnai/wn) imply a distinction either between
Athenians and foreigners or between Athenian citizens and non-citizens (metics, slaves): see, respectively,
Plut. Pel. 6.5, Dem. 35.50 with plausible restoration in IG i³57.11, 227.24, 228 fr.B.9, IG ii² 229.9; the laws
cited in Aeschin. 1.16, 1.19 need not imply a distinction, but their authenticity is not secure. It is this latter
distinction that I think is play here: if ‘some Athenian’ committed dōrodokia, he would no longer be an
Athenian. This interpretation thereby relieves of us of having to posit that a separate (unattested) law
applied to metics, slaves, or foreigners, as MacDowell (1983a: 74n.19) conjectures.
50
Given our limited evidence, the general clause “in any way or manner whatsoever” (tro/pw| h@ mhxanh= |
h) |ntiniou=n) cannot be more precisely dated, so I have tentatively included it in my reconstruction of the
original law against dōrodokia. Although this precise phrase is unparalleled in extant literature and
inscriptions, there are a number of similar phrases attested in the Classical period (usually in the negative,
“in no way or manner whatsoever”): mh/te te/xnh| mh/te mhxanh= | mhdemi/a| (Th. 5.18.4), ou!te te/xnei ou!te
mexanei= ou)demia=i (IG i³ 40.22-3), ou!te te/xnh| ou!te mhxanh| = ou)demia= | (Dem. 24.150), te/xnh| h@ mh/xanh| =
h( |ntiniou=n (Dem. 59.16). More relevant comparanda can be found in various judicial oaths: mhxanh=i h2
t]e/[xnh]i ou0demia=i (IG ii² 1183.8-9, dated after 340), [te/xnai h2 maxana=i ou)d]-/emia=i (IK Knidos
I.221A2.30-32, c.300), and, during the Hellenistic period, o[u1te t]e/xnhi ou1te pareure/sei ou)demia=i
(MDAI(I) 1979: 249-71: II side B 4.32). These last examples, all of which vow that a person will not take
dōra “by any way or contrivance whatsoever,” suggest that in the law against dōrodokia the same clause
limits the actual act of taking dōra, not the harm done to the dēmos: for text, see footnote 7 below. This
would suggest an earlier date for the phrase, before the e)pi\ bla/bh| clause was inserted into the law, but our
evidence is ultimately only suggestive and cannot be taken as conclusive either way.
51
Athenian laws, particularly in the archaic period, notoriously lacked rigorous legal definitions, as was
commonly pointed out in the democracy: 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). So, for example, the law against hubris simply
states, “If anyone commits hubris against another (e)a/n tij u(bri/zh| ei1j tina, Dem. 21.47)...” a vagueness
considered problematic already in antiquity: Todd (2000a: 26-7), Lanni (2006: 67-8, 117-8).
238