BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter Six
wrong. Initially, this regularization of euthynai was due most likely to the influence of the
logistai, whose auditing process had been automatic from the beginning. As the
logistai’s domain increased, more magistrates would have had to submit their accounts at
the end of their term; greater collaboration of logistai and euthynoi would have increased
the number of officials subject to an automatic euthyna. In 403/2, this combination of
domains was formally instituted, as all officials were to undergo both financial
accounting and a euthyna. 36
With regular euthynai, there would have been no need for a decree, like the
Clinias or Assessment decree, to spell out that an official needed to be prosecuted and
fined at his euthyna for corruption involving the tribute. Indeed, with regular euthynai, a
single fine of 10,000 drachmas would no longer have been a suitable punishment for all
cases of dōrodokia—what if an official had committed dōrodokia of a financial nature,
yet not involving the collection of the tribute?—in which case we might expect to find a
switch to a tenfold fine. 37
Because Eurymedon was merely fined, he could later serve as stratēgos in the
Decelean War (Thuc. 7.16.2); Phormio, too, was allowed to serve as stratēgos again after
his fine had been absolved. 38 By contrast, we do not hear of Sophocles and Pythodorus
again. In this way, the creation of a monetary penalty forced a critical issue upon the
36 At the same time, the Athenians created an official period of three days after the examining of an
official’s financial accounts, during which time a citizen could register a complaint to be taken up by the
euthynoi: AP 48.4. This time-period, calibrated to the logistai’s duties, served as an official space during
which accusations of misconduct could be heard by the euthynoi. As such, it marked the formal
combination of authoritative domains.
37 This reconstruction need not conflict with the testimony of Dinarchus, who remarks that the ‘first
lawgivers’ established the graphē dōrōn with a tenfold fine (2.16). After all, Solon, who is usually called
the ‘first lawgiver’ could have created the graphē dōrōn, while later nomothetai could have added a tenfold
fine. Cf. Hansen (1989: 91n.90).
38 Androtion FGrH 324 F8; cf. Paus. 1.23.10. Androtion records that the dēmos paid Phormio’s fine for
him so that he would be eligible to serve as stratēgos again, but for whatever reason (perhaps death) he
never actually became stratēgos afterwards.
270