The Ancient Library

Scanned text contains errors.

On this page: Bust Ylos – Euripus – Euthyne



of the highest rank, or were less desirous to exer­ cise any direct influence upon the government, remained in their former places of residence. (Thirlwall, vol. ii. p. 8.) In the division of the inhabitants of Attica into three classes, which is ascribed to Theseus, the Eupatridae were the first class (Plut. 25), and thus formed a compact order of nobles, united by their interests, rights, and privileges. The first, or at least the most ambitious among them, undoubtedly resided at Athens, where they enjoyed nearly the same privi­ leges as they had before the union in the separate townships of Attica. They were in the exclusive possession of all the civil a,nd religious offices in the state, regulated the affairs of religion, and in­ terpreted the laws human and divine. (Mtiller, Dor. ii. 2. § 15.) The king was thus only the first among his equals, being distinguished from them only by the duration of liis office (Schomann, De Comit. p. 4, transl.) ; and the four kings of the phylae (^uA.o^ao'iA.ei's), who were chosen from the Eupatridae, were more his colleagues than his counsellors. (Pollux, viii. 111.) The kingly power was in a state of great weakness ; and, while the overbearing influence of the nobles, on the one hand, naturally tended gradually to abolish it altogether, and to establish a purely aristocratical government in its stead (Hermann, Pol. Ant. of Greece., § 10*2), it produced, on the other hand, effects which threatened its own existence, and at last led to the entire overthrow of "the hereditary aristocracy as an order: for the commonalty, which had likewise gained in strength by the union of all the Attic townships, soon began to feel the oppression of the aristocracy, which in Attica produced nearly the same effects as that of the patricians at Rome. The legislation of Draco seems to have arisen out of the growing discontent of the commonalty with the oppressive rule of the nobles (Thirlwall, vol. ii. p. 18, &c.) ; but his at­ tempts to remedy the evil were more calculated to intimidate the people than to satisfy them, and could consequently not have any lasting results. The disturbances which, some years after, arose from'the attempt of Cylon, one of the Eupatridae, who tried to overthrow the aristocratical govern­ ment and establish himself as tyrant, at length led to the legislation of Solon, by which the political poAver and influence of the Eupatridae as an order was broken, and property .instead of birth was made the standard of political rights. (Aristot. Polit. ii. 9 ; Dionys. Hal. Ant. Rom. ii. 8; Aelian, V. H. v. 13.) But as Solon, like all ancient legislators, abstained from abolishing any of the religious institutions, those families of the Eupa­ tridae in which certain priestly offices and func­ tions were hereditary, retained these distinctions down to a very late period of Grecian history. (Compare Schomann, Antiq. J'ur. puH. Graeo. p. 167, &c., and p. 77, &c.) [L. S.]

EURIPUS. [amphitheatrum, p. 88, b.]

BUST YLOS. [templum.]

EUTHYNE and EUTHY'NI (ewfl^, svQvvoL). All public officers at Athens, espe­cially generals, ambassadors, the archons and their assessors, the diaetetae, priests and priestesses (Aeschin. c. Ctesipli. p. 56. Steph.), the secretaries of the state (Lysias. c. Nicomacli,\ the superin­tendents of public buildings, the trierarchs, and even the senate of the Five Hundred and the members of the Areiopagus, were accountable for


their conduct and the manner in which thev ac-


quitted themselves of their official duties. The judges in the popular courts seem to have been the only authorities who were not responsible (Aristoph. Vesp. 546 ; Hudtwalcker, Von den Diaetet. p. 32) ; for they were themselves the re­presentatives of the people, and would therefore, in theory, have been responsible to themselves. This account, which officers had to give after the time of their office was over, was called evQvvri: and the officers subject to it, virevQvvoi. Every public officer had to render his account within thirty days after the expiration of his office (Harpocrat. Phot, and Suid. s. v. Aoyiarrat and EvQvvoi} ; and as long as this duty was not fulfilled, the whole property of the ex-officer was in bondage to the state (Aeschin. c. Ctesipli. p. 56. Steph.) : he was not allowed to travel beyond the frontiers of Attica, to consecrate any part of his property as a donarium to the gods, to make his will, or to pass from one family into another by adoption ; no public honours or rewards, and no new office could be given to him. (Aeschin. and Demosth. De Coron. and c. Tim.p. 747.) If within the stated period an officer did not send in his account, an action, called d/\.oy/oi> or oXo-yias sj'/ct], was brought against him. (Pollux, viii. 54 ; Hesych. Suid. Etym. Mag. s. v. KXoyiov Si'/oj.) At the time when an officer submitted to the fvOvvrj, any citizen had the right to come forward and impeach him. Those who, after having refused to submit to the evQvvy, also disobeyed the summons to defend themselves before a court of justice, thereby forfeited their rights as citizens. (Demosth. c. Mid. p. 542.)

It will appear from the list of officers subject to the euthyne, that it was not confined to those whose office was connected with the administration of the public money, or any part of it; but in many cases it was only an inquiry into the manner in which a person had behaved himself in the dis­charge of his official duties. In the former case the scrutiny was conducted with great strictness, as the state had various means to check and con­trol the proceedings of its officers ; in the latter, the euthyne maj7" in many instances have been no more than a personal attendance of the ex-officer before the representatives of the people, to see whether any charge was brought against him. When no accuser appeared, the officer was honour­ably dismissed (eTri(rri[j.aive(r6ai, Demosth. De Coron. p. 310). After an officer had gone through the euthyne, he became avcvQvvos. (Pollux, viii. 54.)

The officers before whom the accounts were given were in some places called evQvvoi or \oyicr-tcu, in others €^era(TTai or orvvrijopoi. (Aristot. PoliL vi. 5. p. 213, ed. Goettling.) At Athens we meet with the first two of these names, and both are mostly mentioned together ; but how far their functions differed is very uncertain. Some gram­marians (Etymol. Magn. and Phot. s. v. Evdvvoi) state that XoyiffrcLi was the name of the same offi­cers who were formerly called sfiQvvoi. But from the manner in which the Greek orators speak of them, it can scarcely be doubted that their func­tions were distinct. From the authorities referred to by Bockh (Publ. Econ. p. 190, &c. 2d ed. compare the Rfiein. Mus. 1827, vol. i. p. 72, &c.), it seems, moreover, clear that the office of the Ao7JcrTcu, though closely connected with that of the euflwor, was of greater extent than that of the latter, who appear rather to have been the

About | First | English Index | Classified Index | Latin Index | Greek Index



page #  
Search this site
All non-public domain material, including introductions, markup, and OCR © 2005 Tim Spalding.
Ancient Library was developed and hosted by Tim Spalding of