the act of arresting a person and carrying him off to prison. It was usually
carried out by the magistrate or his officer, whether after ἔνδειξις,
or the laying of a written
information, or by ἐφήγησις,
prosecutor applied first to the magistrate and conducted him to the spot
where the capture was to be effected [ENDEIXIS
]. As a law term, ἀπαγωγὴ
had also a more technical meaning as distinguished
In certain specified cases the complainant was
allowed to apprehend at his own risk a culprit caught flagrante delicto
), and carry him off to prison or bring him before a
magistrate, afterwards giving the particulars of the charge in writing. If
the prosecutor failed to obtain a fifth of the votes on the trial which
followed, he forfeited, as usual, 1000 drachmas; but in this instance he ran
the further risk of resistance from a powerful criminal. Hence it was the
remedy only of the strong and self-reliant. (Dem. c. Androt.
p. 601.26: compare c. Aristocr.
p. 647.80; c.
pp. 735-6, § § 113. 114; Boeot. de
p. 998.14.) To check the cruelties of private vengeance, no
man might imprison another in his own house. (Dem. c.
p. 630.32; p. 647.80.)
This summary ἀπαγωγὴ
was allowed only in
the case of the most atrocious and usually capital crimes: κακοῦργοι, οἱ τὰ μέγιστα ἀδικοῦντες
phrases of the grammarians. Such were murder or attempted murder,
manstealing, house-breaking (ἀνδροφόνοι,
aggravated assault, such as that
described in the Conon
of Demosthenes (αἰκία
), and robbery with violence or at night.
Simple theft in the day-time was only liable to ἀπαγωγὴ
when the value of the stolen goods exceeded 50
drachmas, except in cases where property in exposed situations was protected
by special laws making 10 drachmas the limit; among these, stealing clothes
or utensils from the public baths or gymnasia, and stores from the harbours,
are specified. (Dem. c. Timocr. l.c.;
ἡ τῶν λωποδυτῶν ἀπαγωγὴ,
) To these may be added homicides
returning from banishment without a legal pardon (Dem. c.
p. 630.31), the grosser forms of impiety and sacrilege
p. 601.27), and συκοφάνται
in certain cases (τὸν
συκοφαντοῦντα τοὺς ἐμπόρους,
p. 1324.10). Some other alleged instances rest upon
doubtful or misinterpreted passages. Thus, it has been wrongly inferred from
a so-called “law” (ap. Dem. c. Timocr.
733.105) that ἀστράτεια
and κάκωσις γονέων
came under this rule. We know
from the text of Demosthenes (l.c.
that the punishment for these offences was ἀτιμία,
involving exclusion from the Ecclesia and from certain
sacred rights; and it is the trespassing upon forbidden precincts, not the
original offences, to which this penalty is assigned [p. 1.134]
by the orator. Aeschines mentions the ἀπαγωγὴ
of the corruptors of youth (c.
§ 43), and of adulterers (ib. § 91): the
former of these is likely enough, but the injured husband, as is known,
might carry his vengeance much beyond simple imprisonment [ADULTERIUM
. It is difficult
to believe, on the strength of a passage of uncertain authorship, that a
might be summarily arrested on
the bare suspicion of not having paid his μετοίκιον
: the act, if it really took place, seems to have been
one of mere lawless violence ([Dem.] c. Aristog.
787.57). And when we read the half-playful remark, that Socrates in any
other state of Greece would have been imprisoned as a magician ῾τάχ᾽ ἂν ὡς γόης ἀπαχθείης,
80 B), we must not take this as a serious
contribution to the Attic law of ἀπαγωγή.
The magistrates before whom such cases were brought were generally the Eleven
(Lex ap. Dem. c. Timocrat. l.c.;
§ 85 f), or the Thesmothetae (Dem. c.
). Charges of ἀσέβεια,
whether by ἀπαγωγὴ
or otherwise, came regularly before the king-archon (Dem. c. Androt.
). The complainant was said ἀπάγειν
: the magistrates, when they allowed it,
). The ἀπαγωγὴ
Senate, mentioned by Andocides (de Myst.
§ 91), must
be pronounced, with Westermann, not to be clearly explained. The punishment
was almost always death, but
we sometimes find a minor penalty adjudged by τίμησις
or assessment. (Dem. c. Timocr.
732.103; Antiph. de caede Herod.
We are not required to assign this technical sense of ἀπαγωγὴ
to every passage where the word ἀπάγειν
occurs. Professor Jebb indeed appears
to doubt the existence of the right of arrest without previous ἔνδειξις
or written plaint. But the passage of
the Androtionea seems explicit on this point; and we have, besides, the
express testimony of the grammarians and the general consensus of modern
scholars (Harpocrat., Hesych., Suid., Bekk. Anecd.
414; Schömann, Antiq. i.
479; Westermann in Pauly,
3.137; Caillemer in. D. and S.; Jebb, Att. Or.
1.57, n.). The
passage in Lysias (c. Agorat. l.c.
) deals with a case in
but by no means proves that this was
always the rule.1