The Ancient Library

Scanned text contains errors.

On this page: Pheidftia O – Phenace – Pherne – Phiala – Phonos



Steph.), we are not informed in what its peculiari­ties consisted. According to Pollux (L c.), it might be brought against those who committed offences against the mine laws, or the customs, or any other part of the revenue ; against any persons who brought false accusations against others for such offences ; and against guardians who injured their wards. The charge, as in the ypatyfy, was made in writing (eV ypa^areic^^ with the name of the prosecutor, and the proposed penalty (ri^.r]fj.a) affixed, and also the names of the ic\7}T7)p6s. The same author says, etyaivovro 5e Trpbs rbv 'dpxovra. Here we must either understand the word &pxot/ra to be used in a more general sense, as denoting any magistrate to whom a jurisdiction belonged, or read with Schomann (de Comit. 178) rovs ftpxovras. For it is clear that the archon was not the only person before whom a c/>c£<m might be preferred. In cases where corn had been carried to a foreign port, or money lent on a ship which did not bring a return cargo to Athens, and probably in all cases of offence against the export and import laws, the information was laid before the eTrtjUeA^Tal rov e/jLTToplov. (Demosth. c. Theocr. 1323.) Where public money had been embezzled, or illegally ap­propriated, for which a tydcris was maintainable, the ffvvfiiKoi were the presiding magistrates. (Isocr. c. Callim. 372 ; Lys. de PuU. Pecun. 149, de Aristoph. bo?i. 154, eel. Steph.) Offences relating to the mines came before the thesmothetae. (Meier, Att. Proc. p. 64.) Injuries done by guardians to their wards or wards' estate, whether a public prosecu­tion or a civil action was resorted to, belonged to the jurisdiction of the archon, whose duty it was to protect orphans. (Suidas. s. v. Qdvis • Demosth. c. Onet. 865, c. Lacr. 940, c. Nausim. 991.) All tydcreis were rifiyrol o/ywves, according to Pollux (viii. 48), and he says t<> Tijur/0et/ tyiyvero ru>v aSiKOUjteez/coi', et /cat aAAos virep avr&v tyrtvsizv. By this we are to understand that the ripy/Ao, went to the state, if the prosecution was one of a purely public nature, that is, where the offence imme­diately affected the state ; but where it was of a mixed nature, as where a private person was in­jured, and the state only indirectly, in such case compensation was awarded to the private person. This was the case in prosecutions against fraudulent guardians. On the same ground, wherever the prosecutor had an interest in the cause, beyond that which he might feel as the vindicator of public justice ; as where he, or some third person on whose behalf he interposed, was the party directly injured, and might reap advantage from the result ; he was liable to the e7ro>£eAta, and also to the pay­ment of the TTpvravtia, just as he would be in a private action. Probably this liability attached upon informations for carrying corn to a foreign port, as the informer there got half the penalty if successful. (Demosth. c. Theocr. 1325.) Where the <j)d<ns was of a purely public nature, the pro­secutor would be subject only to the payment of tho irapdffracris., and to the thousand drachms, if he failed to obtain a fifth part of the votes, accord­ing to the common practice in criminal causes. (Demosth. c. Theocr. 1523.) Whether in those of a mixed nature he was liable to these payments, as well as to the irpvravda and eVwgeAi'a, is a question which has been much discussed, but can­not be settled. We have no speech left us by the orators on the subject of a <$>d(ris, but only mention of a lost speech of Lysias irpbs t^\v (pdaiv rov


6p<paviKov o\'kov. (See Bockh, PuU. Econ. c/ Athens^ p. 368, &c* 2d ed. ; Meier, Att. Proc. pp. 247—252, 732 ; Platner, Prcc. und Kl. vol. ii. pp. 9—17.) [C. R.K.]

PHEIDFTIA Opci&Tia). [syssitia.]

PHENACE (Qcvdicn). [coma, p. 330, a.]

PHERNE (Qepvfy. [Dos.]

PHIALA. [patera.]

PHONOS ((/>d*/os), Homicide, was either ikou-crios or aKovo~ios, a distinction which corresponds in some measure, but not exactly, with our murder and manslaughter; for the </>oVos ikovo-ios might fall within the description of justifiable homicide, while tyovos aKovffios might be excusable homicide. According to the different circumstances under which the homicide was committed, the tribunal to which the case was referred, and the modes of proceeding at Athens, varied. All cases of murder (with one exception, to be hereafter noticed) were tried by the court of Areiopagus ; other cases of homicide were (by the statutes of Draco) to be tried by the €<j>4rai. All tyoviKal Swat belonged to the jurisdiction of the &px®v jSswnAevs as 7776-/xcbr SiKao-rrjpiov. He was anciently the sole judge in cases of unintentional homicide ; for such an act was considered in a religious point of view, as being a pollution of the city ; and it became his duty, as. guardian of religion, to take care that the pollution (ayoy) was duly expiated. Draco, how­ever, established the ecpercu, first as a court of appeal from the &pxojv jSatnAevs ; and soon after they began to perform the office of Si/cacrrat, he being the presiding magistrate. (Suidas, s. v. {Hye-povia. o~Lica(TT7)piov ; Pollux, viii. SO, 125.) In discussing this subject we have to consider the various courts established at Athens for the trial of homicide, the different species of crime therein re­spectively prosecuted, the manner of proceeding against the criminal, and the nature of the punish­ment to which he was liable. All these points are fully discussed by Matthiae in his treatise de Judiciis Athen. in the Miscellanea Philoloc/ica-,, vol. i., to which more particular references are given in this article.

Solon, who seems to have remodelled the court of Areiopagus, enacted that this court should try cases of murder and malicious wounding, besides arson and poisoning. (Demosth. c. Arislocr. 627.) One would be deemed a murderer, who instigated another to commit the deed, provided the purpose were accomplished. (Demosth. c. Conon. 1264,1265; Matth. p. 148.) Besides the court of Areiopagus, there were four other courts, of which the etysrai were judges ; rb eVl ITaAAa&V, to eVl AtXtyivify rb eVi n/>imwetw, and rb eV 4>/?eaTro?. (Harpocr. et Suid. s. v. 3E(j>erai.) To the court e?ri llaAAaSi'y belonged cases of accidental homicide, manslaughter, and attempts to commit murder (/SouAeuo-ejs). Such a case as that mentioned by Demosthenes (c. Neaer. 1348) of an unlawful blow followed by death, would be manslaughter. It seems also that this court had a concurrent jurisdiction with the Areio­pagus in charges of murderous conspiracy, which was carried into effect. The law perhaps allowed the prosecutor to waive the heavier charge, and proceed against the offender for the conspiracy only. (Harpocr. s. v. RovXevtrews • Antiph. rerpaX. 126, ed. Steph. ; Matth. p. 150.) As to the sup­posed origin of this court, see Harpocr. s. v. 'Eirl ; Pollux, viii. 118. To the court eVi fj) were referred cases where the party con-

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