EISANGE´LIA
EISANGE´LIA (εἰσαγγελία) signifies, in its primary and most general sense, a denunciation of any kind (Schömann, Assemblies, p. 181), as in, Lys. c. Agorat. 50, 56, etc. The word εἰσαγγέλλειν first occurs in the psephisma about the ἀπαρχαί (soon after the year 446), published by Foucart, Bull, de Corresp. hellén. 1880, p. 225 ff., and Sauppe, Attica et Eleusinia. In the language of the Attic courts, however, it has been peculiarly applied to three classes of causes (Harpocr. s. v. εἰσαγγελία), which we shall discuss one after another. Of the first of these (ἐπὶ δημοσίοις ἀδικήμασι μεγίστοις καὶ ἀναβολὴν μὴ ἐπιδεχομένοις), two definitions are given in the Lex. Rhet. Cantabr. p. 667, 12 ff., side by side, ascribed to Caecilius and Theophrastus (cf. Journ. of Philol. vi. p. 2) respectively, which in Pollux, 8.51, and Harpocr. s.v. are somewhat mixed up. According to Caecilius, it was directed κατὰ καινῶν καὶ ἀγράφων ἀδικημάτων: according to Theophrastus, against certain specified crimes, practically the same which Hypereides (pro Eux. 22) quotes from the νόμος εἰσαγγελτικός. These two definitions refer in Fränkel's opinion (Att. Geschworenger. p. 77) to two periods, viz. that of Caecilius to the time before Eucleides and that of Theophrastus to the time following, so that under this archonship the crimes were specified by law which could be proceeded against by eisangelia, and the form of procedure was regulated; but when in the trial of Antiphon etc., he points out (p. 86) as an essential deviation from the later procedure the fact that the senate referred the case at once to a court, without first submitting it to the popular assembly, he must have overlooked [Dem.] c. Euerg. p. 1152.43, and c. Frumentar., the case against the corn-dealers in Lys. Or. xxii.Hypereides quotes three classes of crimes as specified in the νόμος εἰσαγγελτικός, without giving always the exact wording of the section of the law: 1st, ἐάν τις τὸν δῆμον τὸν Ἀθηναίων καταλύῃ ἢ συνίῃ ποι ἐπὶ καταλύσει τοῦ δήμου ἢ ἑταιρικὸν συναγάγῃ (cf. Isocr. de Big. 6; Dinarch. c. Dem. 94). 2nd, ἢ ἐάν τις πόλιν τινὰ προδῷ ἢ ναῦς ἢ πεζὴν ἢ ναυτικὴν στρατιάν (cf. Hyper. pro Eux. 18; Schol. Aeschin. c. Tim. 56). To this add from Theophr. and Pollux: ἢ ἐάν τις εἰς τοὺς πολεμίους ἄνευ τοῦ πεμφθῆναι παρὰ τοῦ δήμου ἀφικνῆται ἢ μετοικῇ παῤ αὐτοῖς ἢ στρατεύηται μετ̓ αὐτῶν ἢ δῶρα λαμβάνῃ παῤ αὐτῶν (cf. Ps. Plut. Vitt. X. Orat. p. 833 E; Lyc. c. Leocr. § 59; Hyp. pro Lyc. fr. 2 (p. 23 Bl.), ἢ νεωρίων προδοσίαν ἢ ἀρχείων ἐμπυρισμὸν ἢ κατάληψιν ἄκρας (εἰσαγγέλλειν χρή, Meier) and Alciphr. 1.32). 3rd, ἢ ῥήτωρ ὢν μὴ λέγῃ τὰ ἄριστα τῷ δήμῳ τῷ Ἀθηναίων χρήματα λαμβάνων. To this add from Hyp. pro Eux. 100.39, καὶ δωρεὰς παρὰ τῶν τἀναντία πραττόντων τῷ δήμῳ τῷ Ἀθηναίων (cf. 18). Lipsius concludes from the wording of Hypereides (23, τὰ μὲν ἄνω τοῦ νόμου--τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον τοῦ νόμου), that none of the sections of the law was altogether omitted by him, although each may not be given in its complete form, whilst others are of opinion that Hypereides only quoted the law as far as the passage applying to the case in hand. Certain it is that other crimes [p. 1.709]besides those given above could be proceeded against by eisangelia, not only by taking terms like κατάλυσις etc. loosely, as when the adulterer Lycophron was proceeded against by an εἰσαγγελία καταλύσεως,--bitterly does Hypereides complain of the gross abuse made of eisangelia in this way (pro Eux. 19)--but we learn from an inscription (from the year 324-3, Boeckh, Seeurkunden, p. 540) that eisangelia could be resorted to ἐάν τις ἀδικῇ περὶ τὰ ἐν τοῖς νεωρίοις (this section of the law is applied by a decree of the senate to a particular case; see also [Dem.] c. Euerg. p. 1151.41); and from Dem. c. Phorm. p. 922.50, and Lys. c. Frumentar., it is very probable that it was also directed against offences committed against the commercial laws (cf. the eisangelia against Pytheas, περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὸ ἐμπόριον, Dinarch. vi.); besides, the law which speaks of eisangelia as applying to ἐάν τις τὸν δῆμον ὑποσχόμενος ἐξαπατήσῃ (Dem. de fals. Leg. p. 374.103, and c. Timoth. p. 1204.67) is mentioned as ἀρχαῖος νόμος (Dem. c. Lept. p. 498.135); or may this clause, as well as the one directing eisangelia against sycophants (Isocr. Antid. § 314; Lex. Rh. C. s. v.), be taken as belonging to the third section of the νόμος as above quoted? See also Antiph. de Choreut. § 35 (κλοπῆς δημοσίων χρημάτων); Lys. c. Nicom.; Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 3; Dem. de Reb. in Chers. p. 96.28; and C. I. A. 2.65.
Eisangeliae could be laid before the senate or the popular assembly. In the former case the accuser laid his information in writing (also called εἰσαγγελία, Lyc. c. Leocr. 34. 137; Hyp. pro Lyc. 3, 4; pro Eux. 39 ff.; cf. Plut. Alc. 22） before the prytanes, who reported to the senate on the case (Lys. c. Frum. 2, ἐπειδὴ οἱ πρυτάνεις ἀπέδοσαν εἰς τὴν βούλην περὶ αὐτῶν). No summons was issued to the person accused (Lycophron was abroad when information was laid against him, Hyp. pro Lyc. 3). The senate had a discretionary power to accept or reject (Lys. c. Nicom. 22); if they accepted the information, the accused was arrested if necessary (but see Hyp. pro Eux. 19, ἦ σπάνιον ἰδεῖν ἀπ̓ εἰσαγγελίας τινὰ κρινόμενον ὑπακούσαντα εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον, and Journ. of Philol. iv. p. 108), and in case of a charge of high treason not released, even if he offered to find sureties (in the oath of the senators was the phrase: οὐδὲ δήσω Ἀθηναίων οὐδένα, ὃς ἄν ἐγγυητὰς τρεῖς καθιστῇ τὸ αὐτὸ τέλος τελοῦντας, πλὴν ἐάν τις ἐπὶ προδοσίᾳ τῆς πόλεως ἢ ἐπὶ καταλύσει τοῦ δήμου συνιὼν ἁλῷ, Dem. c. Timocr. p. 745.144; cf. Schol. Aristoph. Eccl. 1089, κατεχόμενον ἑκατέρωθεν ἀπολογεῖσθαι τὸν κατ᾽ εἰσαγγελίαν κρινόμενον).
The next step is described in [Dem.] c. Euerg. p. 1151.41, as τοὺς πρυτάνεις προγράφειν τὴν κρίσιν ἐπὶ δύο ἡμέρας: i.e. on the first day, after both parties had been heard, the senate gave their verdict by secret ballot, whether the defendant was guilty or not; and, if he was found guilty, the senate voted on a second day by show of hands (διαχειροτονεῖν) on the question whether they should sentence him to a fine of 500 drachmas which it was competent for them to impose, or hand him over to a court. In the latter case the secretary of the prytanes had to deliver the sentence (ἡ κατάγνωσις) of the senate to the thesmothetae, who possessed the ἡγεμονία τοῦ δικαστηρίου on such occasions (Pollux, 8.87; Ps. Plut. p. 833 E), and had to bring the case for trial as soon as possible: if that was not done within thirty days after the arrest, it fell to the Eleven to bring the case before the court, according to the νόμος in Dem. c. Timocr. p. 720.63. The number of dicasts was 1000 (κατὰ Σόλωνα, Poll. 8.53), and later on 1500 (κατὰ τὸν Φαληρέα: cf. Lex. Rhet. Cant. s. v. εἰσαγγελία); in the trial of Pistias, 2,500 (Dinarch. c. Dem. § 52). Schömann (Assemblies, p. 203) concluded from the fact of there being no mention of a praejudicium in the decree regarding the trial of Antiphon etc., that when the alleged offence was of such a nature as obviously to be beyond the competency of the senate, a decree was drawn up immediately. Lipsius, on the other hand, suggests that the senate was authorised by the popular assembly to direct this trial, as in C. I. A. 1.59, 1. 39 ff. In some instances belonging to the time before Eucleides, the senate referred eisangeliae to the popular assembly (Xen. Hell. 1.7, 3; Isocr. de Big. 6). Eisangeliae might also be laid directly before the people at the first assembly of every prytany, which was called κυρία (Pollux, 8.95, etc.), but not, as he says (8.87), through the thesmothetae (cf. Boeckh, Kl. Schriften, v. p. 163); and after the accuser and the defendant had spoken, the people voted on the question whether the information should be accepted or rejected. If it was accepted, the senate was commissioned to make a προβούλευμα for the trial (Xen. Hell. 1.7, 7, τὴν βουλὴν προβουλεύσασαν εἰσενεγκεῖν. ὅτῳ τρόπῳ οἱ ἄνδρες κρίνοιντο: C. I. A. 2.65); the popular assembly could either sit in judgment on the case itself (as happened frequently in the time before Eucleides, and only in isolated instances after that year), or refer it to a Heliastic court (as in the case of Lycophron, Hyp., 3; cf. Dem. c. Phorm. p. 922.50, and Aristoph. Wasps 590 ff., ἔτι δ᾽ἡ βουλὴ χὠ δῆμος ὅταν κρῖναι μέγα πρᾶγμ̓ ἀπορήσῃ, ἐψήφισται τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας τοῖσι δικασταῖς παραδοῦναι). If the popular assembly undertook the trial itself, the proceedings were probably the same as those described by Xenophon (Xenoph. Hell. 1.7, 9) on the occasion of the trial of the generals: a psephisma prescribed the form of the trial and the penalty upon conviction (θανάτῳ ζημιῶσαι καὶ τοῖς ἕνδεκα παραδοῦναι καὶ τὰ χρήματα δημοσιεύσαι, τὸ δ᾽ἐπιδέκατον τῆς θεοῦ εἶναι). On that particular occasion the people gave their verdict by ballot, two urns being assigned to each tribe for that purpose; but from the use of καταχειροτονεῖν in other passages (e. g. Lys. c. Philocr. 2; Dem. de fals. Leg. p. 350.31, etc.) it seems probable that this was not invariably the rule. What happened when the popular assembly decided to refer the trial to a Heliastic court, may be learnt from the cases of Archeptolemus, Onomacles, and Antiphon. The senate authorised by the people passed a decree which directed that the accused should be arrested, that the thesmothetae should summon them on the day following the issue of the decree, and bring the cases into court on the day fixed in the summons; that the generals, assisted by such συνήγοροι, not more than ten in number, as they might choose from the senate, and by any other person that might wish to [p. 1.710]join them, should prosecute them for treason, and that the court should deal with those found guilty κατὰ τὸν νόμον ὃς κεῖται περὶ τῶν προδόντων. Ps. Plut. p. 834 A quotes also the judgment of the court. Since Onomacles is not included in it, nor mentioned by Lys. c. Eratosth. 67 (the author of the life (2) of Thucydides deserves no credit in the face of such evidence), he was probably acquitted; if he had fled, as Grote (vii. p. 326) suggests, he would have been condemned to death, etc., along with the others (cf. Dion. Halic. de Dinarch. 3, τῶν δὲ εἰσαγγελθέντων τοὺς μὲν οὐχ ὑπομείναντας τὴν κρίσιν ἀνεθανάτωσαν τῇ ψήφῳ). No direction as to penalty was needed, when that was fixed by law (probably from the middle of the 4th century: see the trial of Cephisodotus in 359 B.C., πέντε ταλάντοις δ᾽ἐζημιώσατε, τρεῖς δὲ μόναι ψῆφοι διήνεγκαν τὸ μὴ θανάτου τιμῆσαι, Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 676.167; Schol. Aeschin. c. Ctes. 51, 52), viz. death and refusal of burial in Attic territory (Journ. of Philol. iv. p. 105, and 8.1 ff.): nor are συνήγοροι as representatives of the people before the court ever mentioned in the 4th century; for those in the speeches of Hypereides are clearly selected by the accusers themselves (pro Lyc. 15, and pro Eux. 46). As to the penalty in the event of the accuser not obtaining the votes of as many as a fifth of the dicasts, the grammarians disagree: Harpocration speaks of a fine of 1000 drachmas, and adds, τὸ δὲ παλαιὸν καὶ οὗτοι μειζόνως ἐκολάζοντο: the Lex. Cant. (p. 677, 12) has simply οἱ δικασταὶ τιμῶσιν; Pollux quotes Hypereides to show that the accuser was ἀκίνδυνος and adds Theophrastus' statement (περὶ νόμων, fr. 8; Journ. of Philol. vi. p. 2 and 14 ff.) that a fine of 1000 drachmas was imposed. The facts of the case are that the accuser was at one time ἀκίνδυνος (Hyp. pro Lyc. 7 and 10), but that this impunity was discontinued (probably διὰ τοὺς ῥᾳδίως εἰσαγγέλλοντας, Pollux, l. l.); and the prominent mention by Demosthenes (de Cor. p. 310.250) of the fact of his accusers (in the period following the disaster of Chaeroneia) having not received τὸ μέρος τῶν ψήφων, i.c. τὸ πέμπτον μέρος, clearly shows that it had become a matter of importance to obtain the fifth part, that otherwise the accusers subjected themselves to a penalty, viz. 1000 drachmas; cf. Lycurg. c. Leocr. 3 (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, pp. 312-329).
Of the two other classes of causes which equally bore the name of eisangelia, the former consists of cases of alleged κάκωσις, i. e. wrong done to orphans (Isae. Hagn. 15), heiresses (Isae. Pyrrh. 46; Dem. c. Pantaen. p. 980, 46, and fr. 5=Poll. 8.53), and widows ὅσαι μένουσιν ἐν τοῖς οἴκοις τῶν ἀνδρῶν τῶν τεθνηκότων φάσκουσαι κυειν, Lex ap. [Dem.] c. Macart. p. 1076.75: not to parents, as Schömann (Assemblies, 181) supposed, Harpocration's definition ἐπὶ ταῖς κακώσεσιν being too wide (cf. Att. Proc. ed. Lipsius, p. 358, n. 443). Upon such occasions the informer (any Athenian citizen might undertake the accusation, Harpocr. s. v. κακώσεως) laid his indictment before the archon, if the aggrieved persons were of a free Attic family; or before the polemarch, if they were resident aliens. The peculiarities of this kind of cause were, that the informer and the defendant were not limited as to time in their speeches before the court (ἄνευ ὕδατος), and that the informer incurred no penalty whatever upon failing to obtain a verdict (οὔτε γὰρ ἐπιτίμιον ταῖς πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα εἰσαγγελίαις ἔπεστιν, οὐδ̓ ἐὰν μηδεμίαν τῶν ψήφων οἱ εἰσαγγείλαντες μεταλάβωσιν, οὔτε πρυτανεῖα οὔτε παράστασις οὐδεμία τίθεται τῶν εἰσαγγελιῶν: ἀλλὰ τοῖς μὲν διώκουσιν ἀκινδύνως εἰσαγγέλλειν ἔξεστι, τῷ βουλομένῳ, Isae. de Pyrrh. her. § 47: cf. Dem. c. Pantaen. p. 980.46; Att. Proc. p. 332 f.). With respect to the accused it is obvious that the cause must have been τιμητός, i. e. that the court would have the power of fixing the amount of penalty upon conviction; ἔσχαται τιμωρίαι, Isae. de Pyrrh. her. § 47, ἐκινδύνευεν ἂν περὶ τοῦ σώματος (i. e. περὶ τῆς ἐπιτιμίας, Meier, de Bon. Damn. p. 143, n. 468) καὶ τῆς οὐσίας ἁπάσης, 62, cf. de Hagn. her. 35, and Dem. c. Pantaen. p. 981.49. (Att. Process, p. 359, n. 449; Schömann on Isaeus, de Pyrrh. her. p. 62.)
The third kind of eisangelia was available against διαιτηταί. Our information on this subject is very limited: Harp. εἰ γάρ τις ὑπὸ διαιτητοῦ ἀδικηθείη, ἐξῆν τοῦτον εἰσαγγέλλειν τρὸς τοὺς δικαστὰς καὶ ἁλοὺς ἠτιμοῦτο (cf. Schol. Plat. Legg. xi. p. 926 D; Bekk. Anecd. 235; and Pollux, 8.126, καὶ ἀτιμία ἀφώριστο τῷ μὴ δικαίως (Meier, d. Privatschiedrichter, etc., p. 15, διαιτήσαντι) and Dem. c. Mid. p. 542.86 ff.). In Hudtwalcker's opinion (ü. d. Diäteten, p. 24 ff.) the διαιτηταὶ had to meet annually in the last month but one, probably in the market-place in front of the senate-house, to be at hand in case a person wished to complain of a verdict given by any one of them (a kind of εὔθυναι, but see Att. Process, p. 260, n. 159); such a complaint was called eisangelia. To this class belonged the complaint of Midias, which was laid before the senate (πρυτανεύοντα H. explains president of the senate). Against this interpretation Lipsius urges that the words τὴν τελευταίαν ἡμέραν τῶν διαιτητῶν and ἐκβάλλει point to Straton as still in office. The correct explanation of the passage is given by Bergk (Zeitschrift. f. Alterth. 1849, p. 273 ff.); he shows that the διαιτηταὶ were a properly constituted body under the presidency of prytanes, and had the power of expelling a member for misconduct (as the senate of 500 and the Areiopagus possessed over their respective members). This happened in Straton's case: Midias laid an information against him before the διαιτηταὶ at their last meeting (B. alters rather needlessly in Harp. πρὸς τοὺς διαιτητὰς to πρὸς τοὺς δικαστὰς, and interprets ἡμέραν εἰς ἣν, etc. “meeting” ), which was not numerously attended, without having informed Straton of his intention, and induced the chairman (of the διαιτηταί), in the absence of Straton, to have the case decided by the vote of those present; the result was that Straton was expelled (ἐκβάλλει) and became ἄτιμος, and this verdict was confirmed by the dicasts on appeal (p. 543.91). (Fränkel, p. 73 n.; Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, pp. 333 and 1013.) [H.H]
Appendix
1.
Εἰσαγγέλλειν πρὸς τὴν τῶν Ἀρεοπαγειτῶν βουλὴν is used in Ath. Pol. 4 (for the time before Solon) of one who had been illegally dealt with by a magistrate, and now pointed out the law which had not been observed (ἐξῆν δὲ τῷ ἀδικουμένῳ τρὸ[ς τὴν τῶν] Ἀρεοπαλειτ[ῶν] βουλὴν εἰσαγγέλλειν ἀποφαίνοντι παῤ ὃν ἀδικεῖται νόμον).Under the rule of the Four Hundred it was proposed to abolish τὰς τῶν παρανόμων γραφας καὶ τὰς εἰσαγγελίας, etc. ὅπως ἂν οἱ ἐθέλοντες Ἀθηναῖοι συμβουλεύωσι περὶ τῶν προκειμένων, etc. (100.29). Anyone accusing such persons as had come forward with proposals was to be punished most severely: ἔνδειξιν αὐτοῦν εἶναι καὶ ἀπαγωγὴν πρὸς τοὺς στρατηγούς, τοὺς δὲ στρατηγοὺς παραδοῦναι τοῖς ἕνδεκα θανάτῳ ζημιῶσαι. (Thuc. 8.67 gives a much briefer account.)
Among the instances of gross abuse of the eisangelia Hyper. pro Eux. col. 19 mentions that of Diognides and the metoec Antidorus against whom an eisangelia was laid, ὡς πλέονος μισθοῦντες τὰς αὐτητρίδας ἢ ὁ νόμος κελεύει--this very law is quoted in 100.50.
From 100.45 we learn that in former times the senate had summary jurisdiction, χρήμασιν ζημιῶσαι καὶ δῆσαι καὶ ἀποκτεῖναι, but that, when they were on the point of putting a certain Lysimachus to death, they were deprived of it by the people. This does not agree with 100.48, καὶ ταῦτα εἰσπρά[ττειν ἡ βο]υλὴ καὶ δῆσαι [κυρ]ία κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ἐστίν: cf. C. I. A. ii. No. 809 b (B.C. 325-4). In the time of Demosthenes the senate was competent to impose a fine of 500 drachmae (Dem. c. Everg. and Mnes. p. 1152.43), nor was the eisangelia laid by a private individual before the senate, at that time confined fined to charges against magistrates for not carrying out the laws, as described in 100.45 (ἔξεστι δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἰδιώταις εἰσαγγέλλειν ἣν ἂν βούλωνται τῶν ἀρχῶν μὴ χρῆσθαι τοῖς νόμοις).
The passage about the functions of the thesmothetae in Pollux, 8.87 f., is almost verbally taken from 100.59; thus the statement that they laid the eisangeliae before the popular assembly, which Boeckh considered wrong and due to a misapprehension of some sort, is taken verbatim from the Ἀθην. πολ. But whilst the Ἀθην. πολ. has: καὶ γραφὰς παρανόμων καὶ νόμον μὴ ἐπιτήδειον θεῖναι καὶ προεδρικὴν καὶ ἐπιστατικὴν καὶ στρατηψοῖς εὐθύνας, Pollux strangely enough omits προεδρικὴν καὶ ἐπιστατικήν. Harpocr., s. v. ῥητορικὴ γραφή, mentions the πρυτανικὴ καὶ ἐπιστατικὴ γραφή [RHETORICE GRAPHE].
2.
Among the charges laid before the Archon are mentioned in 100.56 γονέων (Mr. Wyse) κακώσεως, with the remark αὗται δέ εἰσιν ἀζήμιοι τῷ βουλομένῳ διώκειν: this seems to point to the εἰσαγγελία κακώσεως γονέων, cf. Bekk. Anecd. p. 269, 5 f., and Harpocr, s. v. κακώσεως.
3.
In 100.53 the eisangelia against διαιτηταὶ is mentioned: ἔστι δὲ καὶ εἰσαγγέλλειν εἰς τοὺς διαιτητὰς (papyrus: Mr. Kenyon reads δικαστὰς) ἐάν τις ἀδικηθῇ ὑπὸ τοῦ διαιτητοῦ, κἄν τινος καταγνῶσιν ἀτιμοῦσθαι κελεύουσιν οἱ νόμοι. ἔφεσις δ᾽ ἐστὶ καὶ τούτοις. Appeal to a lawcourt was inferred by Fränkel, Att. Geschworenger, p. 73 n., from Dem. c. Mid. p. 543.91. The reading of the payrus εἰς τοὺς διαιτητὰς ought not to have been altered to εἰς τοὺς δικαστὰς on the authority of Harpocr. s. v. εἰσαγγελία: Bergk's alteration there from πρὸς τοὺς δικαστὰς to πρὸς τοὺς διαιτητὰς is borne out by [p. 1.1068]the papyrus. [In the article in Vol. I. p. 710 b, Bergk's reading is by a printer's error wrongly given; read also Schol. Plat. Legg. p. 920 D instead of p. 926 D.]