BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Six
figure of thief we encountered in Chapter Three. By linking up these three shifts in this
way, we thus find that shifting conceptions of the dōrodokos transformed, in turn, how
the Athenians thought about the legal space in which he worked.
One noteworthy feature of the above legal changes is that they introduced a
stricter legal definition of dōrodokia, usually a clause to the effect of “against the public
interest.” It was argued in the previous chapter that, although the Solonian law for the
graphē dōrōn nowhere defined the crime of dōrodokia, it was later redefined with the
inclusion of “to the harm of the dēmos or any citizen” (e0pi\ bla/bh| tou~ dh/mou h@ tino\j
tw=n politw~n, Dem. 21.113). Similarly, the law for the graphē dekasmou specified that
one was not allowed to “give money unto dōrodokia” (e)pi\ dwrodoki/a| xrh/mata
didou/j, [Dem.] 46.26), and the nomos eisangeltikos prohibited public speakers from
taking money and speaking “against the dēmos’ interests” (mh\ le/gh| ta\ a1rista tw| =
dh/mw, Hyp. 4.8). In the case of the graphē dōrōn, this redefinition seems to have been
intimately tied to expanding the scope of the procedure, but the same cannot be said for
the other procedures. Why, then, the broader interest in more clearly defining what
dōrodokia was?
As a result of these stricter definitions in the law, litigants had a clearer guide in
demonstrating when or if dōrodokia had occurred, namely, by showing whether or not
the public (or some private) interest had been harmed. There was a symbolic reason, too,
for framing this definition with respect to the dēmos’ interests. In committing dōrodokia,
a citizen had either misjudged the greater good or was seeking to avoid being held
accountable to that standard. This, it was thought, lay at the root of institutional
breakdown in the late fifth century. By clarifying the legal definition of dōrodokia, the
287