BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Five One of Solon’s major reforms, therefore, was to establish greater control over the judicial process and the magistrates who administered it. The lawgiver created the legal process of appeal (ephesis) to the Heliaia, which was the Assembly seated as a jury: in case a magistrate had given a seemingly unjust judgment, a citizen could appeal that decision to the popular court. Although in practice the appeals process was rarely used, it at least gave a citizen some control over the judicial process. 72 While the ephesis procedure has thus rightly been taken as a significant, if fledgling, step towards citizen control of the courts (i.e. the creation of popular juries), effectively it only corrected an abuse of power. Holding accountable the magistrates who had intentionally given crooked judgments or otherwise overstepped their bounds was a different matter altogether. Although in the fourth century Solon was perhaps erroneously credited with instituting a range of accountability procedures, it is generally assumed that the lawgiver did institute some kind of oversight for public officials, most likely scrutiny by the Areopagus Council. 73 For a process like the graphē dōrōn, the Areopagus could prosecute an official on its own undertaking or it could first assess the complaint of any willing citizen who lodged an indictment before it and then conduct the trial as needed. 74 The graphē dōrōn thus complemented both the ephesis procedure and the lawgiver’s other attempts to hold magistrates accountable for misconduct in office; it 72 AP 9.2, Arist. Pol 2.1273b35-1274a5, 2.1274a15-18. Cf. Pl. Sol. 18.2-3. ephesis: Wilamowitz (1892: 1.60), Lipsius (1905-15: 28, 954 n.2), Ruschenbusch (1965: 381-4), Harrison (1971: 72-3), Rhodes (1981: 160-2 ad AP 9.1; 2006: 255-6), Ostwald (1986: 9-12). The derivation and significance of the Heliaia are still controversial. Largely on the testimony of AP 9.1, Hansen (1975: 51-2) says that the Heliaia was a court of sworn jurors, but it was probably only a judicial session of the Assembly: Rhodes (1981: 160 ad AP 9.1), Ostwald (1986: 10-11n.29); cf. Rhodes (1979: 103-6). Rhodes (1981: 162 ad AP 9.1) and Ostwald (1986: 12) rightly emphasize that we have no attestation that the ephesis was actually used in the archaic period. 73 See note 69 above for references. Cf. Aesch. Eum. 704-6; Isoc. 7.36-55; AP 8.4, 25.2. Areopagus and nomophylakia: Rhodes (1981: 315-17 ad AP 25.2), Ostwald (1986: 8-13), and Cawkwell (1988). 74 See especially AP 4.4: e)ch=n de\ tw= | a)dikoume/nw| pro\j th\n tw=n 0Areopagitw=n boulh\n ei)sagge/llein a)pofai/nonti par’ o4n a)dikei=tai no/mon. Cf. Ostwald (1986: 12-14), Carawan (1987: 188) 247
Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Five introduced a kind of control over an official’s judgments. 75 Because at this time magistrates like the archons regularly received dōra—court fees of a sort—for their service as adjudicators, the graphē dōrōn straightforwardly regulated the receipt of these dōra. 76 If an official had been suspected of giving a crooked judgment because of the dōra he had taken, any citizen could have lodged an indictment before the Areopagus Council. If this reconstruction is correct, then the original law against dōrodokia and the graphē dōrōn procedure were drafted by Solon primarily as recourse to the crooked judgments of corrupt magistrates. I would like to underscore two important details in this reconstruction. If we can push back the Athenian conception of the dōrodokos as a disobedient citizen to the archaic period, it is striking how readily this figure seems to have been translated into the Solonian regulation. After all, Solon’s attempt to institute some kind of check on the judicial process, whether through ephesis or the graphē dōrōn, was analogous to the ways in which the dēmos would later try to control the disobedient dōrodokos. 77 The penalty of atimia, in particular, might have implied a kind of disobedience. Frequently atimia was used as a penalty for magistrates (and citizens) who had failed to perform their civic duties satisfactorily. 78 One reason why, I suggest, is that precisely because disobedient officials could not effectively be controlled, they needed to be cast outside the moral community of the polis. Like the fifth-century dōrodokos, they were essentially insiders who were forced to become moral outsiders vis-à-vis the rest of the community. 75 On this point, Humphreys (1988: 469-70) is particularly helpful. 76 Archaic Greek law: Hom. Il. 18.507-8 with Gagarin (1975: 105, 109-10); Hom. h. Herm. 324; so, the judge Deioces claims that he received no profit from his judgments, implying that other judges did profit (Hdt. 1.97). In Classical Athens, certain kinds of cases regularly required court fees: Dem. 47.64, AP 59.3, Poll. 8.127; Harrison (1971: 92-4), Hansen (1991: 261). 77 See above Chapter Two and especially below Chapter Six. 78 Hansen (1976: 72-4) surveys the sources. 248
Page 1 and 2:
BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam
Page 3 and 4:
© Copyright by Kellam McChesney Co
Page 5 and 6:
legislating dōrodokia. Rather than
Page 7 and 8:
encouragement that made me crazily
Page 9 and 10:
and long-lasting patience were crit
Page 11 and 12:
CHAPTER SEVEN: Athenian dōrodokia
Page 13 and 14:
Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
Page 257: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363:
show all

BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?