BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Six
through the graphē procedure. We hear of a graphē prodosias, which presumably would
have replicated at least part of the treason clause of the nomos eisangeltikos yet, unlike
that law, applied to any citizen and was not restricted to military officials like stratēgoi. 53
Further, there are striking similarities between the nomos eisangeltikos and the list
of contemporary graphai cited in pseudo-Demosthenes’ second speech Against
Stephanus ([Dem.] 46.26). 54 The text is perhaps corrupt, but the list of graphai includes
the offenses of conspiracy and forming a faction to overturn the dēmos: “If anyone ever
conspires...or sets up a faction for the overturn of the dēmos...” (e)a/n tij sunisth=tai...h2
e(tairei/an sunisth| sunisth|
sunisth| = = = = e)pi e)pi\ e)pi
\\ \ katalu/sei katalu/sei tou= dh/mou dh/mou, dh/mou
[Dem.] 46.26). 55 This last offense
appears to be a conflation of the first clause of the nomos eisangeltikos, which prohibited
“joining together for the overturn of the dēmos or forming a faction” (suni/h| suni/h| suni/h| poi poi e) e)pi e) pi pi\ pi\\
\
katalu/sei katalu/sei tou= tou= dh/mou dh/mou h2 e(tairiko\n sunaga/gh|, Hyp. 4.8). 56 Although the original fear
concerned public officials—namely, that a prominent official might become a tyrant and
overthrow the democracy—the creation of a graphē for this same offense clearly
53
I do not press this point too far, for we have no other attestations of the existence or use of the graphē
prodosias outside of a series of graphai listed in Pollux 8.40, although compare Xen. Hell. 1.7.22. Hansen
(1975: 49) accepts it as genuine; Lipsius (1905-15: 2.262) is dubious.
54
We cannot know the date of this compilation with any great specificity, aside from that it pre-dates the
second speech Against Stephanus (351 BCE). MacDowell (1983a: 66-7), followed by Hashiba (2006:
64n.11), dates it to shortly after 409 BCE, but this is based on a mistaken understanding that the
compilation is, in fact, (only) the specific law governing the graphē dekasmou: see further below. The use
of the word dōrodokia suggests a date sometime after the mid-fifth century, while the concerns about
conspiracy, hetaireiai and judicial bribery suggest a late fifth-century date. Although it does not affect my
argument significantly, I find it not implausible that, with the exception of the graphē dekasmou, some or
all of the compilation might date to the first decades of the fourth century.
55
We earlier noted one potential corruption in the manuscript in a different section of the law. For this
section, Thalheim deletes e)pi\ katalu/sei tou= dh/mou and transposes sunisth=tai so that it immediately
precedes h2 e(tairei/an: “If anyone ever...is joined together [in a faction] or forms a faction...” Gernet
(1957: 185), with lukewarm approval by MacDowell (1983a: 66), deletes the entire clause. There is,
however, no reason to delete the clause, for it was particularly significant amid the oligarchic revolutions of
the late fifth century: it recurs, for instance, in Demophantus’ decree of 410 (cf. dhmokrati/an katalu/h|,
Andoc. 1.96).
56
This phrase should perhaps be emended to read sunisth| = for suni/h|: cf. e)pi\ katalu/sei tou= dh/mou
sunistame/nouj, AP 8.4; sunistame/nouj e)pi\ katalu/sei th=j politei/aj, AP 25.3.
279