Scanned text contains errors.
paid no attention to these, were unable to compete with more experienced opponents. To consult a friend before bringing an action, or about the best means of preparing a defence, were obvious expedients. It was but another step to have a speech prepared by such friend out of court, to be delivered by the party himself when the cause was brought to trial. A class of persons thus sprang up, somewhat in the nature of chamber counsel, who received money for writing speeches and giving legal advice to those who consulted them. Of this class Antiphoii was the first who acquired any celebrity. Lysias, Isaeus, and Isocrates obtained considerable incomes by speech-writing. Demosthenes followed the same profession for some time, until his engagements in public business forced him to relinquish it. (Dem. c. Zenotli. 8.90.) These persons were called not (rv^yopot9 but Xoyoypdtyoi, a name applied to Demosthenes reproachfully by his rival, who accuses him also of betraying his clients by showing the speeches which he had written to the adversary. (Aesch. c. Ctesiph. 78, c. Timarch. 13, ed. Steph.) [LoGOGRAPHi.] Still, whatever assistance the party might have received out of court, the law which compelled him to appear in person at the trial, remained in force ; although the prohibition to speak by counsel was so far relaxed, that if the party was labouring under illness, or through any physical or mental debility was unable to conduct his own cause without manifest disadvantage, he might (by permission of the court) procure a relation or friend to speak for him. Thus, when Miltiades was impeached for treason, and by reason of a gangrene in his hip was unable to plead his own cause, he was brought on a litter into court, and his brother Tisagoras addressed the people on his behalf. So, when Isocrates was ill, his son Aphareus spoke for him in the cause about the avriScHTis. And in the speech of Demosthenes against Leochares we see (p. 1081) that the son conducts his father's cause. As a general rule, the party was expected to address the court himself; for the judges liked to form an opinion of him from his voice, look, and demeanour ; and therefore if a man distrusted his own ability, he would open the case himself by a short speech, and then ask permission for his friend to come forward. (De-mosth. c. Phorm. 922. c. Ncaer. 1349) This was seldom refused ; and in the time of the orators the practice was so well established, that the principal speeches in the cause were not unfrequently made by the advocate. The defences by Demosthenes of Ctesiphon against Aeschines, and of Phanus against Aphobus, may be cited as examples. In both of these it will be seen that Demosthenes was as much interested as the defendants themselves ; and it is further to be observed, that the advocate was looked upon with more favour on this very account; for as no fees were allowed to be taken, a speaker was regarded with suspicion who had no apparent motive for undertaking the cause of another person. Hence we find in most of the ffvvrjyopiKol \6yoi, that the speaker avows what his motives are ; as for instance, that he is connected by blood or friendship with the one party, or at enmity with the other, or that he has a stake in the matter at issue between them. (See the opening of the speeches of Isaeus, de Nicost. her. and de Philoct. her. • Isocrates c. Eutliyn. and Demosthenes c. Androt.} In the cause against Leo-chares above cited it is evident that the son had
an equal interest with his father in preserving the inheritance, and therefore he would be considered in the light of a party. The law which prohibited the advocate from taking fees, under peril of a ypa$>}] before the Thesmothetae (Demosth. c. Steph. 1137), made no provision (and perhaps it was impossible to make, an effective provision) against an influence of a more pernicious kind, viz. that of political association, which induced men to support the members of their club or party without the least regard for the right or justice of the case. Hence the frequent allusions by the orators to the pia <rvK.o<pa,vrS>v.> [lq-^^^v avQp&irtav frvv-coz', irapaffKevas \6yow9 [JLaprvpow, gvvw-, all which expressions have reference to that system of confederation at Athens, by which individuals endeavoured to influence and control the courts of justice. (See erani ; sycophantes ; Reiske, Index in Orat.Att. s. v. 'EpyaffT^piov and Trapao-Kzvfi.) That friends were often requested to plead, not on account of any incapacity in the party, but in order that by their presence they might exert an influence on the bench, is evident from an attentive perusal of the orators. In some cases this might be a perfectly legitimate course, as where a defendant charged with some serious crime called a man of high reputation to speak in his behalf, and pledge himself thereby that he believed the charge was groundless. With such view Aeschines, on his trial for misconduct in the embassy, prayed the aid of Eubulus and Phoeion, the latter of whom he had previously called as a witness. (Aesch. de Fals. Leg. 51, 52, ed. Steph.)
On criminal trials the practice with respect to advocates was much the same as in civil actions; only that it seems to have been more common to have several speakers on the part of the prosecution ; and in causes of importance, wherein the state was materially interested, more especially in those which were brought before the court upon an €l<rayye\ia9 it was usual to appoint public advocates (called ffvvriyopoi, (rvvfiiKoi, or KarTjyopoi) to manage the prosecution. Thus, Pericles was appointed, not at his own desire, to assist in the impeachment of Cimon. (Plut. PericL 10.) Public prosecutors were chosen by the people to bring to trial Demosthenes, Aristogiton, and others charged with having received bribes from Harpalus. (Di-narch. c. Demosth. 90, 969 ed. Steph.) In ordinary cases however the accuser or prosecutor (Karyyopos) was a distinct person from the (rvvrjyopos, who acted only as auxiliary to him. It might be, indeed, that the ffvvfiyopos performed the most important part at the trial, as Anytus and Lycon are said to have done on the trial of Socrates, wherein Melitus was prosecutor ; or it might be that he performed a subordinate part, making only a short speech in. support of the prosecution, like those of Lysias against Epicrates, Ergocles, and Philocrates, which are called eiri\oyoi. But however this might be, he was in point of law an auxiliary only, and was neither entitled to a share of the reward (if any) given by the law to a successful accuser, nor liable, .on the other hand, to a penalty of a thousand drachms, or the ari^ia consequent upon a failure to get a fifth part of the votes. Here we must distinguish between an advocate and a joint prosecutor. The latter stood precisely in the same situation as his colleague, just as a co-plaintiff in a civil action. The names of both would appear in the bill (eyKAityia), both would attend the avditpurts