BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Five
for this subsequent change was to specify the meaning of de/xesqai. In fact, by assuming
that the later law was an explicit redefinition of the verb de/xesqai, with only an implicit
direct object, we can make sense of the fact that the verb lamba/nein, though transitive,
also omitted the object when the law was redrafted. This one crucial omission thus
provides us with a skeleton for reconstructing the original law against dōrodokia and
some of its subsequent development.
Although the law lacks any mention of procedure, the omission of dōra as a direct
object also makes it likely that this original law was associated with the graphē dōrōn
procedure, under which anyone who wanted could come forth and publicly prosecute an
offender. 52 Given that the Athenians used the word dōra to mean only ‘gifts’—recall that
they distinguished ‘gifts’ from what we call ‘bribes’ by context or semantically by the
verb used (e.g. de/xesqai)—the graphē dōrōn properly regulated the receipt of gifts, not
necessarily bribes per se. In other words, the graphē dōrōn defined at what point, or in
what context, licit actions (the receipt of gifts even by a public official) became illicit
(when there was a bad outcome).
This is precisely the kind of regulation found in our original law. If that law
contained the verb de/xesqai—a fair assumption, as we have seen—then it was designed
to define the kinds of exchanges that were allowed in the community; that is to say, it was
52 The law’s association with the graphē dōrōn is commonly assumed but is based on scant evidence:
Lex.Seg. 237.3 says that the graphē dōrōn covered both active and passive bribery, as is suggested by
Demosthenes’ own commentary on the law (Dem. 21.104-7), but Pollux 8.60 claims that the graphē dōrōn
applied only to taking, not giving, bribes. The law itself gives no indication of procedure, and we have no
secure attestation of someone prosecuted under a graphē dōrōn, but see Ant. 6.50 with discussion further
below. Still, there does appear to be evidence that the law was tied to the graphē dōrōn, and precisely with
the subsequent changes envisioned here. Dinarchus 2.16-17 claims that “the first law givers” (oi( prw=toi
nomoqe/tai) created the graphē dōrōn with a penalty of a tenfold fine. The phrase is a hapax—usually
orators refer to the ‘first lawgiver’, i.e. Solon, on which see Hansen (1989: 80), Johnstone (1999: 25-33)—
but it can be explained by assuming that Dinarchus is combining two different legislative acts: the initial
creation of the graphē dōrōn by Solon and the subsequent addition of a monetary penalty by later
nomothetai. Cf. Hansen (1989: 91) and see below.
239