BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Six
21.113). Contemporary testimony suggests that this change occurred in the late fifth
century: it was then that the Athenians were particularly concerned about “harm to the
dēmos” and, consequently, that they framed dōrodokia as a crime against the dēmos’
interests, just as we saw in the nomos eisangeltikos. 59 Yet dōrodokia was simultaneously
redefined as giving or taking “to the harm of one of the citizens,” as well. To that extent,
changing the law’s wording was integral for expanding its scope to cover the actions of
private individuals.
Even if we conservatively date these legal changes to the half-century between
425 and 375, it is nevertheless striking that, in clarifying the law’s definition of
dōrodokia, the Athenians effectively shifted its focus from public officials to ordinary
citizens, particularly those coming into contact with political institutions. Indeed,
Demosthenes cites the law against dōrodokia in order to condemn his opponent Midias
for allegedly bribing the family of a recently deceased to claim that Demosthenes had
murdered their son (Dem. 21.104-7). Even though Midias was a well-known rhētor in
his own right, his bribing of Demosthenes’ enemies seemingly had little to do with his
public role as rhētor. The new legal definition of dōrodokia expanded the law’s scope so
that it could regulate how non-officials like Demosthenes’ opponent interfaced with the
public sphere.
59
Cf. r(h/twr w2n mh\ le/gh| ta\ a1rista tw| = dh/mw| tw= | 0Aqhnai/wn xrh/mata lamba/nwn, Hyp. 4.8. The
phrase e0pi\ bla/bh| tou~ dh/mou h@ tino\j tw=n politw~n is paralleled in both Thucydides’ account of the
debates concerning the constitution of the 400 in 411 (e)pi\ bla/bh| th=j po/lewj kai\ tw=n politw=n, Thuc.
8.72.1) and in Aristophanes’ parody of the curse pronounced at meetings of the Assembly in Council (cf.
e)pi\ bla/bh| tini\/ th= | tw=n gunaikw=n, Th. 337-8); cf. e)pi\] | bla/bei te=i 0Aqen[ai/on, IG i³ 38.6-7 (447/6).
Note, too, how in a speech probably dated to just after 403/2, a defendant claims that he never “took bribes
to the detriment of the polis” (e)pi\ de\ tw= | th=j po/lewj kakw= |…dwrodokoi/hn, Lys. 21.22). Cf. e)pi\ toi=j
u(mete/roij dwrodokou=nti, Lys. 29.11; kakw=j e)poi/ei th\n po/lin, Isoc. 16.42. This frame was formulaic
by the mid-fourth century: cf. Pl. Euthyphr. 13c, Isoc. 8.72, X. Mem. 2.3.19, D. 24.204, IG ii² 1258.5-6,
10-11 and Chapter Four above.
281