previous next


EUTHY´NE and EUTHY´NI (εὔθυϝα, plur. εὔθυναι: later εὐθύνη, plur. εὐθῦναι: Boeckh, P. E. 190 n.=Sthh.3 i. p. 241; C. I. A. ii. No. 578; cf. Wayte, Dem. c. Timocr. p. 717.54; εὔθυνοι). All public officers at Athens (as Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 18, has it, οὐδεὶς ἀνυπεύθυνος τῶν καὶ ὁπωσοῦν πρὸς τὰ κοινὰ προσεληλυθότων), both ordinary and extraordinary, κληρωτοὶ and χειροτονητοί (generals, Lys. pro Milit. § 11; ambassadors, Dem. de Fals. Leg. p. 367.82, p. 406.211; ἀγορανόμοι, ἀστυνόμοι, δικασταὶ κατὰ σήμους, Dem. c. Timocr. p. 735.112; trierarchs, priests and priestesses, etc., Aeschin. l.c.); the ἀγωνοθέται (Ἐθημ. 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. EISANGELIA 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 εὔθυνα, or mostly in pl. εὔθυναι: and the officers subject to it, ὑπεύθυνοι. The annual ordinary public officers had to render it within thirty days after the expiration of their offices (Harp. s. v. λογισταί: Pollux, 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, Sthh.3 ii. p. 111: but see Fränkel, App. 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 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 was brought against him (Pollux, 8.54; Lex. Rhet. Cant. s. v.; Att. Process, 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. Tyran. § 30; Aeschin. c. Tim. § 106).

Aristotle (Aristot. Pol. 7.5, 10 S. = 6.8 Bk.), in speaking of the ἀρχὴ ληψομένη λογισμὸν καὶ προσευθύνουσα, says, some call them εὔθυνοι, some λογισταί, some ἐξετασταί, some συνήγοροι.1 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 and εὔθυνοι, G. Hermann (ü. Boeckhs Behandlung d. gr. Inschr. p. 220 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; but Boeckh (op. cit. 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, and συνήγοροι were each ten in number, chosen by lot, and that the πάρεδροι of the εὔθυνοι were likewise chosen by lot (Lex. Seguer. 276, 17; Photius, 31, 20; Schol. Aristoph. Wasps 691). The Lex. Cant. p. 672, 20 has λογιστὰς αἱρουνται δέκα (ᾑρημένοι, Schol. 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 λογισταί (Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 20, ἐγγράφειν λόγον πρὸς τοὺς λογιστὰς καὶ εὐθύνας διδόναι: § 15, λογ. καὶ εὐθ. ἐγγράφειν πρὸς τὸν γραμματέα (of the Senate, Gilbert, Staatsalt. i. 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. I. A. ii. No. 578, the oath of the λογιστὴς of the deme of Myrrhinus, λογιεῖσθαι ἂν μοι δοκῇ ἀνηλωκέναι: they held their meetings in the λογιστήρια, Andoc. de Myst. § 78; Harp.). At this ἀνάκρισις the εὔθυνοι, 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. Legg. xii. p. 945 B), might bring charges against the ὑπεύθυνος (see the oath of the εὔθυνος, C. I. A. ii. No. 578, καὶ ἐάν μοι δοκῇ ἀδικεῖν, κατευθυνῶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τιμήσω [ἐριτίμιον, Schöll] οὗ ἄν μοι δοκῇ ἄχιον εἶναι τὸ ἀδίκημα), 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 κατηγορεῖν: cf. Dem. de Fals. Leg. p. 341.2, γραφὴ περὶ τῶν εὐθυνῶν, Andoc. de Myst. § 78). We know something about the nature of such charges: Antiphon (de Choreut. § 43) 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.] pro Milit. § 11) to have evaded the εὔθυναι, fearing they would be called to account for a fine illegally inflicted; cf. also Lys. c. Theomn. 1.16. On such occasions the sycophantae plied their trade [p. 1.764]Aristoph. Kn. 259 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, Dem. de Cor. p. 310.250); this could only be done by a court of 501 judges presided over by the λογισταί (Dem. de Fals. Leg. p. 406.211; de Cor. p. 266.117; Aeschin. l.c. § 19 ff. ; C. I. A. ii. Nos. 469, 1. 61, 470, 1. 71; Lex. Cant. l.c.), or by the thesmothetae in case of εὔθυναι of generals. In case of irregularities being discovered at the ἀνάκρισις by the λογισταὶ and συνήγοροι, it devolved upon the latter to bring the charge before the court (see the oath of the συνήγορος in C. I. A. ii. No. 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) was τιμητός (Suid. s. v.), and κλοπὴ δημοσίων χρημάτων (Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 10; Dem. c. Timocr. p. 735.112), δώρων (Dem. de Fals. Leg. p. 429.273), and with ambassadors παραπρεσβεία were principally the offences charged against officers (εὐθύνας ὀφλεῖν is the technical term for being convicted).

In like manner the officers of the demes, the δήμαρχος, the ἱεροποιοί, the ταμίαι (C. I. A. ii. 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 ( νέος, 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] [H.H]

(Appendix). 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. p. 735.112, εἰ μέν τις ἀγορανόμος . . . . κλοπῆς ἐν εὐθύναις ἤλωκεν, . . . . τούτῳ μὲν τὴν δεκαπλασίαν εἶναι; 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 ἔδοξε πρεσβεύσας), 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 is 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 (τίμημα [παραχ]αβόμενος, Mr. Kenyon: ἐπιγραφόμενος̣). This he handed to the εὔθυνος who investigated the matter ( δὲ λαβὼν τοῦτο καὶ ἀ[κούσας], Mr. Kenyon: ὰ[νακρίνας]); 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 εἰσάγουσιν, but if a public matter to the thesmothetae.

1 Λογισταὶ in Eretria (Rangabe/, No. 689), in Ephesus, in Gambreium (Dittenberger, Syll. Nos. 253, 29; 470, 35), in Delos (Bull. vi. p. 25, 1. 202), in Tenos, in Issa (C. I. G. Nos. 202-206; 1834); ὲχετασταὶ in Erythrae, in Smyrna, in Halicarnassus (Dittenberger, Nos. 370, 25; 171, 54 f.; 371, 33 f.); Ἀπολογοὶ in Thasos (Cauer,2 Del. No. 527; Journ. of Hell. Stud. viii. p. 410), in Agrigentum (C. I. G. No. 2161). (Gilbert, Staatsalt. ii. p. 336, n. 1.)

hide References (5 total)
  • Cross-references from this page (5):
    • Aristophanes, Knights, 259
    • Aristophanes, Wasps, 691
    • Aristotle, Politics, 6.1322b
    • Plutarch, Aristeides, 4
    • Plutarch, Pericles, 32
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: