and EUTHY´NI (εὔθυϝα,
: later εὐθύνη,
: Boeckh, P. E.
3 i. p. 241; C. I.
ii. No. 578; cf. Wayte, Dem. c. Timocr.
). All public officers at
Athens (as Aeschin. c. Ctes.
§ 18, has it, οὐδεὶς ἀνυπεύθυνος τῶν καὶ ὁπωσοῦν πρὸς τὰ κοινὰ
), both ordinary and extraordinary, κληρωτοὶ
(generals, Lys. pro Milit.
§ 11; ambassadors, Dem. de Fals. Leg.
p. 367.82, p.
406.211; ἀγορανόμοι, ἀστυνόμοι, δικασταὶ κατὰ
Dem. c. Timocr.
trierarchs, priests and priestesses, etc., Aeschin. l.c.); the ἀγωνοθέται
1862, No. 220; C. I. A.
ii. [p. 1.763]
No. 314), even the senate of the Five Hundred and
the members of the Areiopagus (Dem. c. Androt.
p. 605.38, and
Aeschin. l.c. and Schol.: the latter in their administrative capacity) were
accountable for their conduct and the manner in which they discharged their
official duties. The judges in the popular courts and the diaetetae (cf.
3) seem to
have been the only authorities who were not responsible. This account, which
officers had to give, after the time of their office was over, was called
or mostly in pl. εὔθυναι
: and the officers subject to it,
The annual ordinary public
officers had to render it within thirty days after the expiration of their
offices (Harp. s. v. λογισταί
8.45), i. e. in the month of Hecatombaeon (the κοσμηταὶ
in the month of Boedromion); the treasurer of the
revenue, who held his office for four years, in the month of Pyanepsion and
Maimacterion of the third year of each Olympiad (Boeckh,
3 ii. p. 111: but see
p. 45, n. 272); and generals might be
called back by a decree of the people before the expiration of their office
to give an account (Lys. c. Ergocl.
§ 5 f:). Until
this duty was fulfilled, the whole property of the exofficer was in bondage
to the state (ἐνεχυράζει τὰς οὐσίας ὁ νομοθέτης
τὰς τῶν ὑπευθύνων,
etc.; Aeschin. c. Ctes.
§ 21): he was not allowed to travel beyond the frontiers of Attica,
to consecrate any part of his property as a gift to the gods, to make his
will, or to pass from one family to another by adoption; no public honours
or rewards, and no new office could be given to him (Aeschin. l. c;.
Dem. c. Timocr.
p. 747.150 f.:
cf. Plut. Quaest. gr.
2, about the βασιλεῖς
of Cumae). If within the stated period an officer
through whose hands public money had passed, did not send in his account, an
action called ἀλογίου δίκη
against him (Pollux, 8.54; Lex. Rhet. Cant.
ed. Lipsius, p. 461); in some instances,
however, the εὔθυναι
were delayed long
beyond the specified time (Dem. de Fals. Leg.
p. 374.103: cf.
p. 406.211; Lys. pro Milit.
§ 11, de Affect.
§ 30; Aeschin. c. Tim.
Aristotle (Aristot. Pol. 7.5, 10
6.8 Bk.), in speaking of the ἀρχὴ ληψομένη
λογισμὸν καὶ προσευθύνουσα,
says, some call them εὔθυνοι,
As far as Athens
is concerned, we may leave out the ἐξετασταί,
because the officers who bore that name had quite
different functions (Boeckh, Sthh.
3 i. p.
363 c). In the time before Eucleides thirty λογισταὶ
are mentioned (C. I. A.
i. No. 32; cf.
226, 228); their relation to the ten λογισταὶ
of a later period is not clear. Meier doubts that there
was any connexion between them; whilst Boeckh (Sthh.
3 i. p. 241) supposes that their number was reduced from
thirty to ten. As regards the λογισταὶ
(ü. Boeckhs Behandlung d. gr. Inschr.
ff.) took these to be two names for the same class of officials, relying on
the statement of Photius, that λογισταὶ
were formerly called εὔθυνοι;
i.3 p. 239 f.)
shows conclusively that these two classes of officials existed side by side
both before and after Eucleides; besides, Harpocration, s. v. λογισται,
distinctly avers that Aristotle pointed
out the difference between them.
The grammarians, on the authority of Aristotle, state that the λογισταί, εὔθυνοι,
were each ten in number, chosen by lot, and that
of the εὔθυνοι
were likewise chosen by lot (Lex.
276, 17; Photius, 31, 20; Schol. Aristoph. Wasps 691
). The Lex.
p. 672, 20 has λογιστὰς αἱρουνται
Aeschin. c. Tim.
§ 1); this Boeckh and Schoell (p.
25, n. 2) consider an inaccurate expression, whilst Meier (ad l.c.
) and Schömann (Ant.
1.407, E. T.) suppose that a change in the mode of their appointment (from
cheirotony to choosing by lot) was effected. The πάρεδροι
were probably nominated by the εὔθυνοι
themselves (thus Boeckh). The functions
of these three classes of officers cannot be stated with absolute certainty.
All the ὑπεύθυνοι,
with the exception of
the generals and probably of their subordinate military functionaries, had
to send in their accounts (λόγος
) to the
§ 20, ἐγγράφειν λόγον πρὸς
τοὺς λογιστὰς καὶ εὐθύνας διδόναι
: § 15,
λογ. καὶ εὐθ. ἐγγράφειν πρὸς τὸν
(of the Senate, Gilbert, Staatsalt.
p. 216, n.) καὶ τοὺς λογιστάς
22, λόγον ἀποφέρειν πρὸς τοὺς λογιστας
cf. C. I. A.
i. No. 32; ii. Nos. 444, 446), and those who had
not had anything to do with the public money had to hand in a written
declaration to that effect (Aeschin. l.100.22). The λογισταί,
assisted by the συνήγοροι,
examined these accounts within the period of thirty
days (Lex. Cant. l.c.
παρ᾽ οἷς διαλογίζονται πᾶσαι αἱ ἀρχαὶ τά τε
λήμματα καὶ τὰς γεγενημένας δαπάνας: καὶ ἄλλους δέκα
συνηγόρους, οἵτινες συνανακρίνουσι τούτοις
: cf. C.
ii. No. 578, the oath of the λογιστὴς
of the deme of Myrrhinus, λογιεῖσθαι ἃ ἂν μοι δοκῇ ἀνηλωκέναι
: they held their
meetings in the λογιστήρια,
§ 78; Harp.). At this ἀνάκρισις
who seem. to have exercised a kind of general
financial control and to have been assigned with their πάρεδροι
to the several departments (Boeckh, Secure:.
p. 466, and Schol. Plat.
xii. p. 945 B), might bring charges against the
(see the oath of the
C. I. A.
ii. No. 578, καὶ ἐάν μοι
δοκῇ ἀδικεῖν, κατευθυνῶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τιμήσω
Schöll] οὗ ἄν μοι δοκῇ ἄχιον εἶναι τὸ
), and probably private individuals likewise had a chance
of doing so (Aeschin. l.c.
§ 23, ἐχρῆν σε . . . ἐᾶσαι τὸν τῶν λογιστῶν κήρυκα
κηρῦχαι τὸ πάτριον καὶ ἔννομον κήρυγμα τοῦτο: τλς βούλεται
: cf. Dem. de Fals. Leg.
γραφὴ περὶ τῶν εὐθυνῶν,
§ 78). We know something about the
nature of such charges: Antiphon (de Choreut.
argues that the basileus had acted within his rights, since Philocrates had
not brought a charge against him on the occasion of the εὔθυναι
: again, the generals are said (Lys.]
§ 11) to have evaded the εὔθυναι,
fearing they would be called to
account for a fine illegally inflicted; cf. also Lys. c.
1.16. On such occasions the sycophantae plied their trade
ff., 824; [Dem.] c. Aristog.
i. p. 781.37). Even
when the accounts were found correct and no accuser appeared, the λογισταὶ
could not discharge the ὑπεύθυνος
(ἐπισημαίνεθαι τὰς εὐθύνας,
p. 310.250); this could only be done by a court of 501
judges presided over by the λογισταί
de Fals. Leg.
p. 406.211; de
p. 266.117; Aeschin. l.c.
19 ff. ; C. I. A.
ii. Nos. 469, 1. 61, 470, 1. 71;
l.c.), or by the thesmothetae in case of
of generals. In case of
irregularities being discovered at the ἀνάκρισις
by the λογισταὶ
it devolved upon the latter
to bring the charge before the court (see the oath of the συνήγορος
in C. I. A.
578); and if the εὔθυνος
or a private
person had brought a charge, they acted as accusers before the court. Such a
cause (γραφὴ περὶ τῶν εὐθυνῶν
(Suid. s. v.), and κλοπὴ δημοσίων χρημάτων
§ 10; Dem. c. Timocr.
(Dem. de Fals.
p. 429.273), and with ambassadors παραπρεσβεία
were principally the offences charged against
officers (εὐθύνας ὀφλεῖν
technical term for being convicted).
In like manner the officers of the demes, the δήμαρχος,
(C. I. A.
Nos. 578, 581, 571) had to give an account after their time of office was
over. In the deme of Myrrhinus the demarchus had to render his account
before the εὔθυνος
of the deme who had to
award the penalty, the λογιστὴς
who had to
examine the accounts, and ten elected συνήγοροι,
who, after having been sworn in by the new demarchus
Köhler), decided the
case by secret voting; it was possible to appeal from this decision to a
meeting of the demotae; and if the sentence of the συνήγοροι
was upheld, the fine was increased by onehalf. (R.
Schöll, de Synegoris Atticis Comm.; Att. Process,
ed. Lipsius, pp. 112-117, 257-269.) [L.S
. The λογισταὶ
are twice mentioned in Ath. Pol. From
100.48 we learn that they, ten in number, were appointed by lot from among
the members of the senate, to check the accounts counts of the different
officers in each prytany; and in 100.54, λογισταὶ
δέκα καὶ συνήγοροι τούτοις δέκα
are mentioned as
appointed by lot. Then follows a detailed account of the proceedings in the
law-courts: if they prove a man guilty of embezzlement (κλοπή
: cf. Dem. c. Timocr.
735.112, εἰ μέν τις ἀγορανόμος . . . . κλοπῆς ἐν
εὐθύναις ἤλωκεν, . . . . τούτῳ μὲν τὴν δεκαπλασίαν
; Aeschin. c. Ctes.
§ 10; Plut. Arist. 4
), then the dicasts find him
guilty of embezzlement, and he is fined in ten times the amount of the sum
proved against him. The same procedure took place in case of bribes (cf.
Dem. F. L.
p. 429.273, δῶρα λαβεῖν
), the fine being again tenfold; whilst in
the case of ἀδικίου
the fine was in the
same amount as the fraud, if paid before the 9th prytany, and double the
amount if deferred. The δίκη ἀδικίου
mentioned in Plut. Per. 32
, εἴτε κλοπῆς καὶ δώρων εἴτ̓ ἀδικίου βούλοιτό τις
ὀνομάζειν τῆν δίωξιν
of Pericles regarding the expenditure
of public money; cf. Harpocr. s. v. and Pollux, 8.31. Two πάρεδροι
to each εὔθυνος,
appointed by lot, are mentioned in 100.48. The
duty of the παρεδροι
was to station
themselves in the ἀγοραὶ
by the Eponymi of
the several tribes, and there to receive complaints against persons who had
received their discharge from a court of law within three days from such
discharge. The complaint was entered upon a tablet with the name of the
complainant and the person accused, together with the amount of the τίμημα
Mr. Kenyon: ἐπιγραφόμενος̣
). This he handed to the εὔθυνος
who investigated the matter (ὁ δὲ λαβὼν τοῦτο καὶ ἀ[κούσας],
); and if he judged the
man guilty, he passed over the matter if a private one to the δικασταὶ οἱ κατὰ δήμους οἳ τὴν φυλὴν ταύτην
but if a public matter to the thesmothetae.