BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Six
jurors a stricter legal definition with which to guide their judgment on dōrodokia suits.
But they did so either by essentially repeating the process, thereby reasserting the
authority of a particular political body within a particular domain, or by changing what
had been deemed a thoroughly corrupt process—i.e. switching domains.
One instance of repeating the process involved the dokimasia procedure at which
Euxenippus had experienced problems. As Euxenippus’ testimony suggests, Athenian
anxieties over the corruption of political bodies only continued in the fourth century, and
were not limited to the main political organs of the polis; on the contrary, the corruption
of local bodies was just as serious a concern. For Euxenippus was not the only one to
call foul at a local assembly. There were numerous contemporary fears that the
dokimasia process was not working correctly. 73 By 346/5, there was such a pervasive
belief in, and anger at, corruption of the citizen registration processes that the Athenians
voted to hold an extraordinary registration, in which every citizen of every deme would
have his citizenship reviewed and voted on by his fellow demesmen. 74 This was an
exceptional measure, to be sure, yet it is testament to the twin beliefs that dōrodokia had
corrupted a number of individual outcomes and that the solution was to repeat the
73 On corruption at the deme level, see further Haussoullier (1979: 45-6), Whitehead (1986: 291-301, esp.
292-3). So, Aeschines accuses Timarchus of being bribed to drop the citizenship case of someone who was
in fact from a different deme (Aeschin. 1.114-15). Contemporary comedies joke about how readily the
residents of Potamos accepted illegally registered citizens into their community or how often slaves
suddenly became full-fledged citizens in the deme of Sounion. Potamos: Harpoc. s.v. Potamo/j. Sounion:
Anaxandrides fr. 4.3-4: polloi\ de\ nu=n me/n ei)sin ou)k e)leu/qeroi,/ ei)j au!rion de\ Souniei=j (“many are
slaves today, but tomorrow they are Sounians”). In one case, dated between 336 and 324, it was claimed
that a public slave, Agasikles, had bribed his way into the citizen ranks; on that occasion, the prosecution
harped on his Scythian heritage, a particularly potent claim in the wake of Macedonian influence at Athens.
Agasikles: Hyp. 4.3, Din. frr. 7.1-2; cf. Harpoc. s.v. skafhfo/roi and Harpoc. and Suda s.v.
prometrhth/j. For further details on this trial, including its dating and the circumstances surrounding it,
see below and number 115 in Hansen’s catalogue (1975: 105).
74 The diapsēphesis of 346/5 was proposed by Demophilus, who was known for his public accusations of
corruption during the citizen enrollment procedures: cf. Aeschin. 1.86. On Demophilus’ decree and the
diapsēphesis of 346/5, see Haussoullier (1979: 38-55), Whitehead (1986: 104-9). Citizen anger against
those who had corrupted the dokimasia process is reported in Dem. 57.49: see further Haussoullier (1979:
40-1).
289