BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter One
latter. Of course, contextualizing details could also make it clear that one or both of these
components was present. 49
When the language of gift exchange was used—‘giving’, ‘receiving’, ‘gifts’,
etc.—usually the transaction context was closer to gift than to compensation. In order to
signal that, in fact, some kind of quid pro quo had occurred, commercial language was
frequently used. Verbs like priamai (“buy”) or pōlō (“sell”), and nouns like misthos
(“payment, wage”) or kerdos (“profit”) and their cognates all clearly shifted the
transaction context from gift to compensation. 50 Likewise, a dative of instrument or
prepositional phrases like e3neka + gen. (“for the sake of X”), e)pi/ + dat. (“with an eye
towards X” or “for the price of”), or i3na + purpose clause could reframe a voluntary gift
as compensatory exchange. 51 These prepositional phrases played a particularly important
role in legal regulations of dōrodokia: archons swore never to receive gifts “for the sake
of [their] office” (th=j a)rxh=j e3neka, AP 55.5, cf. Pollux 8.86); jurors swore never to take
gifts “for the sake of [their] role on the jurycourt” (th=j h(lia/sewj e#neka, Dem. 24.150);
and the law against dōrodokia specified that no one could give or take “to the harm of the
people” (e)pi\ bla/bh| tou= dh/mou, Dem. 21.113); similarly, the law against judicial bribery
49
One or the other of these components could just as easily be implicit—and not clearly evident in the
language used. Hence, I do not maintain that, in order to employ the frame of bribery, both of those
elements must be included. I would argue, instead, that explicit inclusion of any of these elements can, but
need not, indicate that a scene is being viewed through the frame of bribery. What I would like to avoid,
however, is the common scholarly mistake of reading a scene of gift exchange—with no explicit markers of
compensation or normative violation—and calling it ‘bribery’ simply because it involves a public official.
As a social frame, bribery has tremendous social significance, so any time the frame of bribery is employed
we should expect to find some linguistic trace of this significance.
50
Harvey (1985: 84-6) comprehensively surveys the commercial language of bribery; see also von Reden
(1995a: 89-92) on misthos.
51
I list a few examples of each. Dative of instrument: Hdt. 5.63, Plut. Cim. 14.3, Thuc. 4.65.3. e3neka +
gen.: Hom. Od. 11.521, 15.247, Theog. 46 West. e)pi/ + dat.: Pl. Rep. 590a2, Leg. 955c8; Dem. 21.113,
46.26. i3na + purpose clause: Hom. Il. 23.297, schol. ad Ar. Ach. 6.
51