BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Five
Demosthenes preserves a ‘law’ which, in fact, is a collocation of distinct laws with the
same procedure. 59 Conceivably, in the fourth century this summary grouping of laws,
together with a single procedure, was displayed next to the full text of each individual
law, each of which texts may not have duplicated the procedure involved. 60 In this way,
when the scholiast inserted the law against dōrodokia into the Demosthenic text, his
source might very well have lacked any mention of legal process.
I suggest that the graphē dōrōn underwent the same legal changes as some of the
other offenses collected in the ‘law’ cited at Demosthenes 46.26—all of which also called
for a graphē before the thesmothetai. Some of these offenses are found in the so-called
impeachment law (nomos eisangeltikos), which, though drafted around 411/0, actually
reflects a much older catalogue of public wrongs. 61 Originally, a number of offenses in
the nomos eisangeltikos may have been intended specifically for public officials, who
were subject to a written indictment, alternately called an eisangelia or graphē. 62 Only
also would have been grouped according to the presiding magistrate, although Gallia (2004: 455) rightly
stresses that in fact the anagrapheis would have had some latitude in how they gathered together the laws
for republication. For further background on the revision of Athenian laws at the end of the fifth century,
see Hansen (1990a; 1991: 162-5), Rhodes (1991), Gallia (2004), Lanni (2006: 142-8). Papakonstantinou
(2008: 61-2) points to precisely the same kind of ‘dialogue’ between statutes in the archaic law code of the
Cretan city of Gortyn.
59 [Dem.] 46.26, discussed in further detail below. The ‘law’ transmitted in the text combines various laws
against conspiracy, bribing juries, and forming a hetaireia, each of which offenses was prosecutable by a
graphē before the thesmothetai, brought by anyone who wanted. See Lavency (1964: 91ff.) on the law’s
authenticity. For further compilations of this sort, see IG i 3 105, 236-41, Gallia (2004: 454-5).
60 The procedure and penalty for overthrowing the dēmos, for example, were listed separately: see
respectively [Dem.] 46.26 and And. 1.96.
61 Note how both contain provisions against forming a hetaireia or overthrowing the dēmos: [Dem.] 46.26,
Hyp. 4.8.
62 The entire second clause of the nomos eisangeltikos, on treason, seems to have applied primarily to
stratēgoi. Similarly, conspiring to overthrow the dēmos and trying to set up a tyranny were essentially one
and the same—Demophantus’ law against tyranny contains both, after all (And. 1.96-8)—yet the real
concern with tyrants was that a prominent official might try to appropriate too much power, as feared with
Cylon, Solon, Pesistratus and Isagoras. I follow Ruschenbush (1968: 73-4), Carawan (1985: 117) in
positing that the verb ei)sagge/llein may originally have applied to any public indictment against a
magistrate, whether in office or having just completed his term: cf. AP 4.4. Because these indictments
could have been presented in written form (a graphē), it is understandable that later sources use the words
eisangelia and graphē interchangeably to describe denouncements of public officials.
242