previous next


APAGO´GE (ἀπαγωγὴ) was 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, when the 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 from ἔνδειξις and ἐφήγησις. In certain specified cases the complainant was allowed to apprehend at his own risk a culprit caught flagrante delicto (ἐπ᾽ αὐτοφώρῳ), 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. Timocr. pp. 735-6, § § 113. 114; Boeot. de Nom. p. 998.14.) To check the cruelties of private vengeance, no man might imprison another in his own house. (Dem. c. Aristocr. 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 are the phrases of the grammarians. Such were murder or attempted murder, manstealing, house-breaking (ἀνδροφόνοι, ἀνδραποδισταί, τοιχώρυχοι 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.; τῶν λωποδυτῶν ἀπαγωγὴ, c. Conon, init.) To these may be added homicides returning from banishment without a legal pardon (Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 630.31), the grosser forms of impiety and sacrilege (ἀσεβεῖς, ἱερόσυλοι, id. c. Androt. p. 601.27), and συκοφάνται in certain cases (τὸν συκοφαντοῦντα τοὺς ἐμπόρους, id. c. Theocrin. 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. p. 733.105) that ἀστράτεια and κάκωσις γονέων came under this rule. We know from the text of Demosthenes (l.c. § 103) 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. Timarch. § 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 μέτοικος 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. i. p. 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, Plat. Meno, 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.; Lys. c. Agorat. § 85 f), or the Thesmothetae (Dem. c. Aristocr. l.c.). Charges of ἀσέβεια, whether by ἀπαγωγὴ or otherwise, came regularly before the king-archon (Dem. c. Androt. l.c.). The complainant was said ἀπάγειν τὴν ἀπαγωγήν: the magistrates, when they allowed it, παραδέξασθαι (Lys. l.c.). The ἀπαγωγὴ before the Senate, mentioned by Andocides (de Myst. § 91), must be pronounced, with Westermann, not to be clearly explained. The punishment of κακοῦργοι was almost always death, but we sometimes find a minor penalty adjudged by τίμησις or assessment. (Dem. c. Timocr. p. 732.103; Antiph. de caede Herod. § 10.)

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. 1.200, 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 which ἀπαγωγὴ followed ἔνδειξις, but by no means proves that this was always the rule.1


1 Much of the above article has already appeared in the writer's notes to the Androtion and Timocrates.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: