BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter One
context (“The animal that is furry and barks...”), we would never use both at the same
time (“The dog that is furry and barks…”) merely to convey the idea of ‘dog’. 31 Given
that the Athenians always provided some additional indication that something was a
‘bribe’, we should think not that the Athenians used the same word for both ‘gift’ and
‘bribe’, but that they had no word for ‘bribe’. 32 As in a relational model of bribery, there
was nothing that could inherently be considered a bribe; it was the outcome of the gift,
the way in which it was framed, that determined its normative value.
The language of gift exchange and persuasion was regularly used to describe the
workings of Athenian politics and society. 33 Indeed, scenes of bribery were often
described in much the same language—a curious yet understandable result given that the
Athenians had no word for ‘bribe’. Note how the entire scene at Artemisium is couched
in the neutral language of gift exchange and persuasion and thus provides no indication
that Themistocles’ actions would have constituted bribery (Hdt. 8.4-5). The Euboeans
unsuccessfully tried to “persuade” Eurybiades (e1peiqon), but successfully “persuaded”
Themistocles (pei/qousi), who then “won over” Eurybiades and Adimantus
(a)nepe/peisto; a)napepeisme/noi). In each case, Herodotus says that persuasion was
successful because it was coupled with either the giving of “gifts” (dw=ra dw=sw;
dw/roisi) or “money” (e.g. tw=n xrhma/twn metadidoi=) or, in Themistocles’ case, the
31 Thus, in the sentence, “The dog that is furry and barks is mine,” we do legitimately use both kinds of
linguistic markers, yet they do not perform the same function. While “dog” marks out that the subject is a
dog—not, say, an ‘animal’ generally—the limiting phrase “that is furry and barks” signals which dog is
intended, much like “the animal that is furry and barks” signals which animal is intended (a dog).
32 On comparative grounds, too, this interpretation may be preferable. For instance, the French language
notoriously lacks a word for ‘bribe’; but, like ancient Greek, it successfully conveys the notion of ‘bribery’
through verbs, euphemisms, and context. Outlining the Russian vocabulary for blat (personal influence)
and bribery, Dunn (2000) shows how the popular language of bribery is neither identical to the language of
everyday transactions, nor is it aligned with vocabulary used in criminal circles; it is marked off in some
way from both categories because it fits neither.
33 Harvey (1985: 82-3), Strauss (1985: 72-3), Taylor (2001: 160-2).
44