BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Seven
throughout the democracy, but underscoring its educational and legitimizing roles places
into focus how, even if the laws themselves were ineffective deterrents, the legal
regulation of dōrodokia, those laws in action, could nevertheless strengthen the
democracy in important ways.
One hallmark of the democracy was the elaborate sortition process by which
jurors and, later, magistrates were selected for service. 2 Originally, jurors were assigned
by lot for the full year of their jury service to a single jury panel which reported to a
particular court. 3 Probably in the late fifth century this system was changed so that each
panel was randomly assigned by an allotment machine (klērōtērion) to a court each
morning. 4 Around 380, this process was complicated yet again: the klērōtēria were used
to determine at random which jurors would be selected for jury service that morning,
before each juror then drew his court assignment at random. 5 In the second half of the
fourth century, moreover, the Athenians began to select at random the location of the
courtroom over which each magistrate would preside. 6 Similarly, around 370-362, the
selection of magistrates, too, came to employ the klērōtēria used in the allotment of
jurors to courts. Previously, for the minor magistracies, each deme had been allotted
specific offices to fill in a central lottery using clay tokens in the Theseion, and each
2 On this process, see Dow (1939), Kroll (1972), Staveley (1972: 47-57, 61ff.), MacDowell (1978: 36-40),
Rhodes (1981: 697-735), Boegehold (1984), Bers (2000), Demont (2003); cf. Taylor (2007) on the election
and sortition of magistrates. Selection by lot was later viewed as a cornerstone of the democracy: Hdt.
3.80, Aristot. Pol. 1274a5, 1294b7-9: Headlam (1933: 4-12, 19-26), Badian (1971: 9), Ober (1989: 76-
7). Whether viewed as a pro-democratic or, more likely, a pro-elite instrument used to reduce elite
competition for office by ensuring broad representation and even distribution—so Carawan (1987: 207-8)
and Demont (2003: 40)—sortition was essential for including a more diverse range of citizens in the
workings of the polity: Taylor (2007).
3 Ar. V. 242-4, 303-5, 1107-9, MacDowell (1983: 64).
4 The first mention of the klērōtērion probably dates to Aristophanes’ Geras (assigned to 410 BCE): see
Boegehold (1984: 24). The next mention of the sortition machines in our sources dates to around 391 BCE
with Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazousae (cf. klhrw/sw, Ec. 682).
5 MacDowell (1978: 36-40) provides a helpful summary of the sources and process. See further Kroll
(1939), Bers (2000).
6 Implicit from AP 63.5.
297