BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Six
We can trace the origin of a monetary fine for dōrodokia in the development of
institutions for public accountability in the half-century after Ephialtes’ reforms.
Specifically, two different authorities—the boards for examining the conduct (euthynoi)
and accounting (logistai) of officials—were combined with increasing regularity through
the end of the century. After the transfer of the Delian League treasury from Delos to
Athens in 454/3, we find a range of institutional changes that reflect the Athenians’ new
concern that the influx of tribute payment to Athens needed to be monitored closely.
Probably in 454/3 the board of thirty logistai, or accountants, was created to oversee the
finances of the imperial tribute. 21 So, from 454/3 we find the logistai, selected by lot
from the Athenian citizen body, examining the accounts of the hellēnotamiai in charge of
collecting the tribute for the treasury of Athena. Yet the jurisdiction of these logistai only
grew in subsequent decades. By the 430’s, we find them calculating monies due to other
treasuries, as well as examining the accounts of generals and of the sacred treasurers of
Athena and other gods. 22 Already in the 420’s, the auditing duties of the logistai were
synonymous with the euthyna process. 23
21 Cf. IG i³ 259=ATL i.1.1-4, IG i³ 260=ATL i.2.1, IG i³ 261=ATL i.3.1, all dated between 454/3 and 452/1.
Certainty is impossible in dating the institution of the logistai, but our epigraphic sources seem to suggest
454/3, with the transfer of the Delian League treasury. As recent scholars rightly emphasize, logistai are
not attested prior to this time, and for a few decades thereafter they are found only in conjunction with
imperial revenues: cf. Piérart (1971: 564-5), Hashiba (2006: 66n.19-20). Other scholars have assumed,
largely based on the later collaboration of euthynoi and logistai, that logistai of some sort were created with
Ephialtes’ reforms as part of the euthyna process: see, for example, Hignett (1952: 204), Carawan (1987:
190). But what would have prompted Ephialtes to create financial accountants for euthynai? No such
financial overseers had existed prior to his reforms, and the financial accounts of Cimon (and others) never
even seemed to be at issue. Moreover, the assumed pairing of euthynoi and logistai overlooks the ad hoc
nature of both boards prior to the 430’s: see above for euthynoi and below for logistai.
22 Hellēnotamiai: IG i³ 52=ML 58.A6; IG i³ 369=ML 72.2. Treasuries of other gods: IG i³ 52=ML 58.A7-
9. Other officials: IG i³ 52=ML 58.A24-9; IG i³ 369=ML 72 (passim). These inscriptions are all dated to
433/2.
23 Cf. Ar. V. 553-7, 570-1 (422BCE); Eupolis, Poleis fr. 223K (c. 420BCE). Hashiba (2006: 66) for
discussion. This merging may have occurred already by the 430’s, when Pericles was charged at his
euthyna with a series of crimes—embezzlement (klopē), bribery (dōra), and maladministration (adikion)—
which would have entailed auditing his financial accounts: Plut. Per. 32.2 with Hashiba (2006: 66). Date:
438/7, following Frost (1964); Hansen (1975) suggests 430/29.
265