The Ancient Library

Scanned text contains errors.

On this page: Eisangelia


bringing a cause (elffdyew) into a proper court. [DiAETETAE ; dike.] The cause itself was tried, as is explained under dike, by dicasts chosen by lot; but all the preliminary proceed­ings, such as receiving the accusation, drawing up the indictment, introducing the cause into court, &c., were conducted by the regular magistrate, who attended in his own department to all that was understood in Athenian law by the fiytpovia to? diKaaTTjpiov. Thus we find the strategi, the logistae, the eTrtcrraTcu ratv SrjfJiOffiwv tpycavj the £Trt/ji.e\r)ral rov djUTropiov, &c., possessing this yyGj-iovict,; but it was not the chief business of any of the public magistrates, except of the archons and perhaps of the eleven. The chief part of the duties of the former, and especially of the thes-mothetae, consisted in receiving accusations and bringing causes to trial (elffdyew) in the proper courts. [AncHON.]

EISANGELIA (aVcryyeTu'a), signifies, in its primary and most general sense, a denunciation of any kind (Schb'mann, De ComitUs, p. 181), but, much more usually, an information laid before the council or the assembly of the people, and the consequent impeachment and trial of state crimi­nals at Athens under novel or extraordinary cir­cumstances. Among these were the occasions upon which manifest crimes were alleged to have been committed, and yet of such a nature as the existing laws had failed to anticipate or at least describe specifically (&ypa<f)a dSt/c^/mra), the result of which omission would have been, but for the enactment by which the accusations in question might be preferred (v6/.ios darayy€ATiK6s'), that a prosecutor would not have known to what magis­trate to apply ; that a magistrate, if applied to, could not with safety have accepted the indictment or brought it into court; and that, in short, there would have been a total failure of justice. (Har-pocrat. s. v.) The process in question was pecu­liarly adapted to supply these deficiencies ; it pointed out, as the authority competent to deter­mine the criminality of the alleged act, the as­sembly of the people, to which applications for this purpose might be made on the first business-day of each prytany (/cupta eK/cA7j<na, Harpocrat.), or the council, which was at all times capable of undertaking such investigations ; and occasionally the accusation was submitted to the cognizance of both these bodies. After the offence had been declared penal, the forms of the trial and amount of the punishment were prescribed by the same authority ; and, as .upon /the conviction of the offenders a precedent would be established for the future, the whole of the proceedings, although ex­traordinary, and not originating in any specific law, may be considered as virtually establishing a penal statute, retrospective in its first application. (Lycurg. c. Leocrat. p. 149, ed Steph.)

The speech of Euryptolemus (Xen. Hell. i. 7. sul) fin.^) clearly shows that the crime charged against the ten generals who fought at Arginusae was one of these unspecified offences. The decree of the senate against Antiphon and his colleagues (Pint. Vit. Dec. Orator, p. 833, e), directing that they should be tried, and, if found guilty, punished as traitors, seems to warrant the infer­ence, that their delinquency (viz. having under­taken an embassy to Sparta by order of the Four Hundred, a government declared illegal upon the reinstatement of the democracy), did not amount



to treason in the usual sense of the term, but re­ quired a special declaration by the senate to render it cognizable as such by the; Heliaea. Another instance of treason by implication, prosecuted as an extraordinary and unspecified crime, appears in the case of Leocrates, who is, in the speech already cited, accused of having absented himself from his country, and dropped the character of an Athe­ nian citizen at a time when the state was in immi­ nent danger. Offences, however, of this nature were by no means the only ones, nor indeed the most numerous class of those to which extraordi­ nary denunciations were applicable. They might be adopted when the charge embraced a combina­ tion of crimes, as that of treason and. impiety in the famous case of Alcibiades, for each of which a common indictment (ypa<pfi) was admissible, when the accused were persons of great influence in the state, when the imputed crime, though punishable by the ordinary laws, was peculiarly heinous, or when a more speedy trial than was permitted by the usual course of business was requisite to ac­ complish the ends of justice. (Schb'mann, De Com. p. 190 ; Harpocrat.) Circumstances such as these would, of course, be very often pretended by an in­ former to excite the greater odium against the accused, and the adoption of the process in ques­ tion must have been much more frequent than was absolutely necessary. .

The first step taken by the informer was to re­duce his denunciation to writing, and submit it immediately to the cognizance of the council, which had a discretionary power to accept or re­ject it. (Lys. c. Nicom. p. 185.) Schb'mann main­tains that a reference to this body was also neces­sary when it was intended to bring the matter before the assembly of the people, but that its agency was in such cases limited to permitting the impeachment to be announced for discussion, and directing the proedri to obtain a hearing for the informer. The thesmothetae are also men­tioned by Pollux (viii. 87) as taking part in bringv ing the matter before the assembly, but upon what occasion they were so employed we can only con­jecture.

In causes intended for the cognizance of the council only., after the reception of the denuncia­tion, three courses with respect to it might be adopted by that body. If the alleged offence were punishable by a fine of no greater amount than five hundred drachmae, the council itself formed a court competent for'~rW"trial ; if it was of a graver character they might pass a decree, such as that in the case of Antiphon already mentioned, directing the proper officers to introduce the cause to a He-liastic court, and prescribing the time and forms of the trial, and the penalty to be inflicted upon the conviction of the criminals ; lastly, if the mat­ter were highly important, and from doubts or other reasons they required the sanction of the assembly, they might submit the cause as it stood to the consideration of that body. In the first case, the trial was conducted before the council with all the forms of an ordinary court, and if, upon the assessment of penalties, the offence seen> ed to deserve a heavier punishment than fell with* in its competency, the trial was transferred to a Heliastic court, by the delivery of the sentence of the . council (xaTtiymo-is) to the thesmothetae by the scribe of the prytanes, and upon these officers it then devolved to bring the criminals to justice.

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