The Fall of the Athenian Empire-(A New History of the Peloponnesian War) Donald Kagan - (1987)

THE TRIAL OF THE GENERALS 365
be more natural than for such men, forced by political considerations
to a subordinate role after an unbroken series of magnificent naval
successes, to be annoyed by the shortcomings of their superiors, irritated
by any of their failures, and convinced that all would have gone
well had capable men like themselves been in charge?
Their defense of themselves and indictment of the generals were
effective. The assembly voted to depose the eight generals of Arginusae
and ordered them to return and face the charges against them." Aristogenes
and Protomachus chose to flee into voluntary exile, "fearing
the anger of the people."" Their flight does not prove their guilt but
suggests only that they had weaker nerves than their colleagues or less
confidence in the Athenian people, but it could not fail to prejudice
the case against those who returned to face trial. The procedure to
which the returning generals appear to have submitted was the euthynai,
the review undergone by every Athenian magistrate at the end of his
term of office. It consisted of an examination of his financial accounts,
if any, as well as a scrutiny of his conduct in all other respects. 16
The first general to submit his accounts was Erasinides, and they
were found unsatisfactory. Archedemus, at that moment the leading
democratic politician and the man in charge of the diobelia, brought
Erasinides before a popular court aud charged him with misappropriation
of public funds and with misconduct as a general. The court
found him guilty and imprisoned him." Some scholars have seen political
motives behind the singling out of this one general for condemnation
before the others were heard, suggesting that the attack on
Erasinides was a tactic of the democratic faction to place the blame on
HXen. 1.7.1; Diod. IJ.IOI.5. The procedure used was probably &1TOXELPOTovCa..
Officials removed by this process had not been convicted of a crime but stood accused
and must make a defense before the appropriate body. See J. T. Roberts, Accountability
in Athenian Government (Madison, Wise., 19Sz), 15. Since Conon, at Mytilene during
the entire affair, was innocent, he was given command of the fleet, and Adeimantus
and Philocles were sent to assist him.
JjXen. 1.7.1. The quotation is from Diod. IJ.IOI.S.
J 6 0n the euthynai, see Hignett, HAC zoJ-205; D. M. MacDowell, The Law in Classical
Athens(lthaca, N. V., and London, 1978), I]O-I]2i and Roberts, Accountability, 17-18.
The sources do not directly say that the procedure employed was the euthynai, but the
evidence is consistent with it. As we shall see, Erasinides was charged first with
mismanagement of funds and then of misconduct as general, the two parts of the
euthynai investigation. That he was then placed before a popular court (Xen. 1.7.2) is
a normal consequence. The other generals made their first statement to the boule, and
both the logistai and the euthynai, the men who conducted the two parts of the review,
were boards chosen from the boule (Arist. Ath. Pol. 48.4-5).
17
Xen. 1.7.2.