BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Six appears to have condemned a long list of impeachable offenses, including committing dōrodokia and then speaking in public, and this list of offenses was incorporated into the curse as early as 480. 8 Although no source explicitly attests to a clause against dōrodokia in the bouleutic oath, such a clause is likely, if only based on analogy to other oaths and to the curse at the beginning of meetings of the Council. 9 There is no reason to assume that these clauses were added simultaneously; nor should we assume that these extra-legal measures are straightforward indications either the clause on dōrodokia was not accepted by Westermann (1858-9), Fränkel (1878: 465-6) and subsequent critics: recently, Hansen (1991: 182), Mirhady (2007). Although I disagree with complete authenticity of the oath presented in Demosthenes, as argued by Drerup (1897: 256-64), I concur with Drerup (1897: 257) and Harrison (1971: 48), contra the orthodox view taken by Fränkel and his followers, that the clause on dōrodokia is authentic. As Fränkel (1878: 457, 465-6) admits, this is precisely the kind of clause we would expect to find in the heliastic oath—one reason that he inserts into the oath that jurors would vote “with neither malice nor favor” (ou1te xari/tou e3nek’ ou1t’ e2xqraj), borrowed from an oath taken by members of the deme of Halimus as they voted on the citizenship of members of the deme (Dem. 57.63). Yet, as Drerup (1897: 257) rightly points out, we need not import a new phrase, particularly when we have striking comparanda for the language used. Drerup (1897: 257) adduces two examples: an oath taken by the euthynoi of the deme Myrrhinus— ou)de\ dw=ra de/comai ou1t’ au)to\j e)gw\] ou1t[e] a1[l]loj v e)moi\ ou)-/[de\ a1]ll ?e ? ei)do/toj e) ?mo[u= mhxanh=i h2 t]e/[xnh]i ou0demia=i (IG ii² 1183.8-9, dated after 340)—and a judicial oath from Kalymnos—ou)de\ dw=ra e1labon ta=j di/kaj tau/taj e3[neken par’ ou)deno\j]/[o]u1te au)to\j e)gw\ ou1te a2loj ou1te a1lla e)mi\n [te/xnai h2 maxana=i ou)d]-/emia=i (IK Knidos I.221A2.30-32, around 300). To these we can add another judicial oath, from Klazomenae: kai\ dw=ra ou)k e1-/labon ou)de\ lh/yomai tw=[n d]ikw=n e3neken ou1te au)to\j e)gw\ ou1te a1l-/loj e)moi\ ou1te a!llh{i} o[u1te t]e/xnhi ou1te pareure/sei ou)demia=i (MDAI(I) 1979: 249-71: II side B 4.32); the same phrase is repeated later in the inscription from Klazomenae in regard to giving dōra as well (4.49-51). On the strength of these comparanda, the oath of the Amphictyonian Council has plausibly been restored as follows: ou)de\ dw=ra de/comai ou1te auto\j e)gw/, ou1te]/ a1lloj e)moi (FD iii 4.278 col B12). Cf. IG xii² 207.9-10. What is puzzling about the wording of the clause on dōrodokia is that it seems to conflate two phrases which are normally not found together. ou)de\ dw=ra de/comai th=j h(lia/sewj e#neka contains both ou)de\ dw=ra de/comai—a straightforward phrase found also in the Myrrhinus oath, the Amphictyonic oath, and elsewhere (cf. mhde\ dw=ra decei=sqai mhde/poka, IG ii² 1126.11)—and e#neka plus a noun, a phrase which repeats the force of dw=ra de/xesqai and is thus otherwise used only in conjunction with the verb lamba/nein, not de/xesqai, as in the archon’s oath and the oaths from Kalymnos and Klazomenae. Perhaps in a redrafting like the one proposed above for the original law against dōrodokia, the oath itself was modified, without changing the verb, to specify the meaning of de/comai. 8 The reconstruction of the curse at Rhodes (1972: 37) accurately records the sense of this clause as “takes bribes to speak against the interests of Athens.” But it should be noted that the phrase, “against the interests of Athens,” taken from Dinarchus (1.47, 2.16), was most likely a product of the fourth century, as we saw in Chapter Four. Indeed, the actual curse appears to have included the verb de/xesqai, as suggested by Aristophanes’ parody of the curse in the Thesmophoriazousae (cf. de/xetai, Ar. Th. 346). If so, the clause seems clearly modeled off the original law against dōrodokia. We cannot know when the addition was added, except that it pre-dates Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazousae (411/0). 9 Rhodes (1972: 12-13). 256
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:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
Page 265: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
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?