BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Six The collaboration of logistai and euthynoi was complete as late as 410/9, when it is suggested that any willing citizen could lodge an indictment against an official (i.e. at a euthyna) in the logisth/rion or ‘workplace of the logistai’. 24 By the end of the fifth century, all public officials were subject to both financial auditing and a euthyna. 25 In other words, what began as an ad hoc board of auditors to monitor the collection of the tribute developed into a board which oversaw the conduct of the majority of public officials, its very domain of authority thus dramatically expanded. The regulation of dōrodokia seems to have played an integral role in this gradual combination of the logistai’s with the euthynoi’s domain; in other words, thinking about dōrodokia enabled the Athenians to standardize the processes of public accountability. Given that corruption involving the tribute seemed to entail both misconduct, which was usually prosecuted by euthynoi, and mismanagement of the tribute, which would have fallen under the jurisdiction of the logistai, it is worth pausing to consider how the Athenians would have incorporated into the law dōrodokia involving the tribute. As contemporary inscriptions suggest, the Athenians treated this new kind of dōrodokia as a kind of hybrid: misconduct, yet of a financial nature. So, the Clinias decree, alternately dated to 448/7 or 425/4, mandates that any Athenian or ally who “does injustice to the tribute” ([...a)dike=i peri\ to\]-n fo/ron) either should be indicted by a graphē brought before the Council, or, crucially, should be charged at a euthyna with taking dōra, with 24 Lys. 20.10. Similarly, in 405, the euthynoi were said to conduct their work in the logisth/ria (And. 1.78). Whether there was just one such workplace or many (as suggested by Andocides) is perhaps solved by following Wilamowitz (1893: 2.235) and Piérart (1971: 572) in assuming that there were ten logistēria, one for each tribe’s logistai. Cf. AP 48.4-5, 54.2 25 As suggested by Lysias 30.4-5 (c. 400BCE). This process is described in Andoc. 1.78, AP 48.3-5. See further Carawan (1987: 207-8), Efstathiou (2007). 266
Page 1 and 2:
BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam
Page 3 and 4:
© Copyright by Kellam McChesney Co
Page 5 and 6:
legislating dōrodokia. Rather than
Page 7 and 8:
encouragement that made me crazily
Page 9 and 10:
and long-lasting patience were crit
Page 11 and 12:
CHAPTER SEVEN: Athenian dōrodokia
Page 13 and 14:
Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
Page 275: Conover Bribery in Classical Athens
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363:
show all

BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?