From the end of the Archaic era to the end of the Hellenistic period, all officials of Greek cities were required to render their accounts (euthynai) through procedures, which varied according to political regimes and times. Most of the time a board of controlling officials examined the accounts. This examination would take place at the end of the officials’ terms of office, but sometimes a partial examination took place during the terms. The controlling magistrates could initiate prosecutions against officials. In democracies, ordinary citizens could also sue magistrates in court.
The procedure for holding officials accountable is called euthynai (correction) in the ancient sources. Many literary texts and epigraphic sources show the importance of the practice, particularly during the Classical and the Hellenistic periods. It was one of the most important features of civic institutions. From the End of the Archaic Period onwards, the Greek cities took a series of measures to prevent abuses of power by officials: accountability was only one of these measures. In fact, in Greek political thought, tyrannical power is characterised as aneuthynos (e.g., Herodotus 3.80.3), which broadly means “not subject to legal proceedings” or “uncontrolled.”
Officials had to render their accounts (mostly logon apodidonai or tas euthynas didonai in Greek), at the end of their time in office as well as while in office. In most poleis, a separate body of magistrates was tasked with examining these accounts. At these moments, a set of procedures (which varied from city to city) enabled ordinary citizens to bring charges against officials before the courts.
David M. Lewis and Sara Zanovello
In the Greek world, manumission, which spelt the end of an individual’s life in slavery, was achieved in a variety of ways, but it often entailed legal obligations to remain (paramenein) as a free servant for a fixed period of time. In some cases, freedmen and freedwomen subject to paramone obligations were able to “buy out” of this condition (apolysis). Manumission documents, which have been found in many parts of the Greek world, particularly in northern Greece (especially Delphi), reveal the legal position of slaves and how it differed from the legal position of freedpersons. Unlike in Rome, freedpersons in the Greek world did not automatically become citizens of their ex-owner’s polis (although some freed slaves did manage to achieve naturalization in return for benefactions bestowed on the community). In Athens, they held a legal position almost identical to that of resident foreigners (metoikoi), with some minor differences. Manumission was usually a private act, but in some cases the polis manumitted privately owned slaves, and in Sparta, helots could only be manumitted by the state. The frequency of manumission in the Greek world remains a debated topic, but recent work has raised the possibility that its use as an incentive for slaves was probably targeted mainly at slaves working in skilled, “care-intensive” roles, and also for slaves (including hetairai) with whom individuals conceived sexual attachments.
From the earliest stages, the Greeks understood the distinction between legislation and day-to-day administration. They gave laws a special status and often created specific, separate procedures to enact them. In the Archaic period, specially appointed lawgivers were normally in charge of giving laws to the polis; these laws were intended to be immutable, and their stability secured through entrenchment clauses. Making laws was not considered to be among the normal tasks of the government of the polis, and there were no standard procedures to change the laws once these had been given. Assemblies in Greek city-states often enacted rules that had the force of law, but the legislative changes were not institutionally acknowledged, and the laws enacted by the lawgivers could not be changed. This gave rise to significant problems of legitimacy, and it introduced inconsistencies in the legal system of the polis, a problem that we can observe in 5th-century
Arnold Wycombe Gomme, Theodore John Cadoux, and P. J. Rhodes
Zeugitai (from zeugos, ‘yoke’), at Athens, Solon's third property class, said (perhaps by false analogy with *pentakosiomedimnoi) to comprise men whose land yielded between 200 and 300 medimnoi of corn or the equivalent in other produce (the other three classes were *pentakosiomedimnoi, *hippeis, *thētes). The name identifies them as those who served in the army in close ranks (cf. Plut.Pel.23), i.e. as *hoplites, or, less probably, as those rich enough to own a yoke of oxen. Despite recent doubts, this class probably included many of the farmers and craftsmen of *Attica, and provided the bulk of the hoplite army. Under Solon's constitution the zeugitai enjoyed full citizen rights except that they were not admitted to the highest magistracies (see
Zaleucus, lawgiver of Italian *Locri Epizephyrii, and probably the earliest lawgiver in Greece, perhaps c.650
Jakob Aall Ottesen Larsen and Simon Hornblower
Victor Ehrenberg and P. J. Rhodes
D. M. MacDowell
Henry Dickinson Westlake and Antony Spawforth
Tetrarchy was first used to denote one of the four political divisions of *Thessaly (‘tetrad’ being a purely geographical term). The term found its way to the Hellenistic east and was applied to the four divisions into which each of the three Celtic tribes of *Galatia was subdivided (Strabo 12. 5. 1, 567 C). In Roman times many Hellenized *client kings in Syria and Palestine were styled ‘tetrarch’, but the number of tetrarchies in any political organization ceased to be necessarily four, denoting merely the realm of a subordinate dynast. Modern scholars conventionally describe as a ‘tetrarchy’ the system of collegiate government (two senior Augusti, two junior Caesars) instituted by *Diocletian (