BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Six
heliastic oath and curse in the Assembly probably so, while the bouleutic oath seems to
date to 502/1 in the beginning of the democracy. What is clear is that these public
declarations were enacted in the sixth century and continued to be modified through at
least the fifth century. 5
Significantly for our purposes, by the middle of the fifth century these oaths and
curses came to include clauses outlawing dōrodokia, as well. Again, more precise dating
is impossible, but the following additions seem to have been made. The archon’s oath
definitely incorporated a clause “not to take dōra for the sake of one’s office” (dw=ra mh\
lh/yesqai th=j a)rxh=j e3neka, AP 55.5, cf. Pollux 8.86), probably sometime between the
founding of the democracy and the establishment of the people’s courts by the mid-fifth
century. 6 We find similar language attested for the heliastic oath: “I will not take dōra
illicitly in exchange for my vote in the Heliaia” (ou)de\ dw=ra de/comai th=j h(lia/sewj
e#neka, Dem. 24.150). 7 Further, the public curse at meetings of the Assembly and Council
5 Archon’s oath: AP 7.1 is explicit that the oath first sworn by the archons after Solon was the same oath
sworn in his own time in the latter part of the fourth century, but this cannot be, given that still different
oaths are recorded in AP 55.5 (cf. Pollux 8.86) and AP 56.2. Public curse: see Rhodes (1972: 36-7) for
discussion. Bouleutic oath: Rhodes (2007: 13); one notable change was the addition of a clause referring
to the amnesty of 403/2 (Andoc. 1.91).
6 That this clause is an addition to the archon’s oath is clear from the fact that both Aristotle and Plutarch
attest that the original Solonian oath forbad simply breaking his laws: AP 7.1, Plut. Sol. 25.2; cf. Bonner
and Smith (1930: 1.169) and contra Rhodes (1981: 621 ad AP 55.5), who feels compelled to choose
between the two versions cited in AP. Hashiba (2006: 76) suggests that the addition could have been made
at the time of Solon, but when? Solon left Athens shortly after enacting his reforms (AP 11.1, Plut. Sol.
25.4, cf. Hdt. 1.29.2), and our sources insist that he made no changes after his laws had been passed (AP
11.1, Plut. Sol. 25.4). Similarly, the Peisistratids were not known as legal innovators, so it unlikely that
they would have modified the oath. This makes the addition a product of the democracy. The terminus
ante quem is when the authority of the archons was significantly reduced during the democracy. This
would have come not with the establishment of the selection of archons by lot in 487—as most scholars
assume—but with the creation of the people’s courts around the time of Ephialtes’ reforms. As Badian
(1971: 9-17) reminds, the “quality” of the archons was not affected by the institution of the lot; by contrast,
after the creation of the people’s courts, the archons lost much of their authority in judging cases.
7 This clause is preserved only in a version of the heliastic oath which was inserted by a scholiast into a
speech of Demosthenes (24.149-51): on this oath, see Fränkel (1878), Drerup (1897: 256-64), Bonner and
Smith (1938: 152-6), Hansen (1991: 182-3), Mirhady (2007). A number of the clauses in that speech have
been considered spurious—so Fränkel (1878: 465-6), Lipsius (1905-15: 1.151-2)—and the authenticity of
255