previous next

ENDEIXIS

ENDEIXIS (ἔνδειξις). Endeixis, apagoge, and ephegesis have a great deal in common, both as regards the cases to which they were applicable and the mode of procedure and punishment, so that they are frequently mentioned side by side (Andoc. de Myst. § 91; Dem. c. Lept. p. 504.156; c. Timocr. p. 745.146; [Dem.] c. Theocr. p. 1325.11); and sometimes the same case is now called ἀπαγωγή, now ἔνδειξις. Thus Antiphon's Or. de caed. Herod. is the speech of defence in an ἀπαγωγὴ φόνου ( § 9, 85), yet in § 9 we find ἐνδεδειγμένος. This, however, should not have misled Jebb (Att. Orat. i. p. 57) into saying that “ἔνδειξις and ἀπαγωγὴ do not denote two different processes, but two parts of the same process. Endeixis was the laying of information against a person not yet apprehended; apagoge was the act of apprehending him.” Nor can Lysias's Or. c. Agor. be quoted as an instance in which apagoge followed endeixis. Dionysius proceeded against Agoratus by apagoge, and the title which the grammarians give to the speech κατ᾽ Ἀγοράτου ἐνδείξεως is wrong (Blass, d. Att. Bereds. i. p. 552). The similarity of procedure shows itself in this, that there was no πρόσκλησις; and that when the magistrate accepted the charge (called ἀπαγωγή, Lys. c. Agor. § 85, or ἔνδειξις, [Dem.] c. Theocr. p. 1322.1, respectively), the defendant was kept in prison, unless he could find three sureties (Dem. c. Timocr. p. 746.146; c. Nicostr. p. 1251.14; Dinarch. c. Aristog. § 9; see, however, Andoc. de Myst. § 2, οὔτ᾽ ἐγγυητὰς καταστήσας, οὔθ̀ ὑπὸ δες μῶν ἀναγκασθείς). From Antiph. de caed. Herod. § 13 we learn that the defendant in that case, probably because of his not being a citizen, was imprisoned, although he offered to find the three sureties required by law, and that in the majority of cases capital punishment awaited him on conviction.

Apagoge (ἀπαγωγή) was a summary process in which the prosecutor led the culprit caught flagrante delicto (ἐπ᾽ αὐτοφώρῳ, Isae. Dicaeog. § 28; Dem. c. Steph. i. p. 1126.81; Xen. Mem. 1.2, 62, φανερός: cf. Photius, s. v. ἕνδεκα) either directly into prison, if the charge belonged to the jurisdiction of the Eleven, who had first to decide whether a primâ facie case had been made out by the informant (ἀπαγωγῆς ἄξια ποιεῖ: ἀρχὴ τῶν ἕνδεκα, Hyperid. pro Eux. col. 22; ἀπάγειν τοῖς ἕνδεκα, Dem. c. Timocr. p. 736.113; εἰς τὸ δεσμωτηριον, c. Aristocr. p. 647.80, etc.; ἀποδέχεσθαι, παραδέχεσθαι is said of the Eleven, Lys. c. Theomn. 1.10, c. Agor. § 86), or before the proper authority, who sent the culprit to prison. It was not in every case when a culprit was caught in the act that apagoge was allowed; and in those cases where it was allowed, the culprit might be apprehended not only when literally caught in the act, but also when his guilt was notorious, ἐπ᾽ αὐτοφώρῳ being formally essential for establishing the charge, but meaning practically no more than ὁμολογουμένως or φανερῶς (Rauchenstein, Philol. v. p. 514; cf. Lys. c. Agor. § 86 f.). Thus when Ariston had recovered after a protracted illness from the assault committed upon him by Conon and his companions, his friends said that Conon was liable τῇ τῶν λωποδυτῶν ἀπαγωγῇ (they had stripped Ariston of his cloak and carried it off, Dem. c. Con. p. 1259.8; p. 1260.10). In spite of the lapse of time, an apagoge was still possible, Ariston being able to establish the guilt of Conon clearly by eyewitnesses, etc. Sandys and Paley (ad loc.) say, “The plaintiffs friends meant that Conon might have been captured flagrante delicto, and carried off to prison as a λωποδύτης;” but bearing in mind the case of Agoratus, it seems not to have been a question of what “might have been,” but what “might be still.” It is true that in Antiphon's Or. de caed. Herod. the absence of ἐπ᾽ αὐτοφώρῳ in the charge is not pointed out as a flaw by the defendant; but this does not show, as Sorof suggests (Jahrb. f. cl. Phil. 1883, p. 110), that ἐπ᾽ αὐτοφώρῳ was not at that time insisted upon and only became essential after Eucleides: the defendant protests against the prosecution by ἀπαγωγὴ altogether, on the ground that a murderer does not come under the meaning of the term κακοῦργος as defined by the law. The proceeding by apagoge was most frequently adopted against those whom the law designated as κακοῦργοι ( τῶν κακούργων νόμος, Antiph. de caed. Herod. § 9, with two additions, cf. Athen. 6.226 a, and C. I. A. ii. No. 476, 1. 56), such as thieves (Antiph. de caed. Herod. § 9), clothes-stealers (λωποδύται, Lys. c. Theomn. 1.10; c. Agor. § 68), burglars (τοιχωρύχοι, Dem. c. Lacr. p. 940.47), kidnappers (ἀνδραποδισταί, Isocr. de Permut. § 90), cutpurses (βαλαντιοτόμοι, Xen. Mem. 1.2, 62), and persons who contravened the market-regulations (Athen. 6.226 a, and C. I. A. 2.476, 1. 56 f.). The term was extended to similar classes of criminals, such as murderers and adulterers (Aeschin. c. Tim. § 90), temple-robbers (argum. [Dem.] c. Aristog. i. p. 767; Xen. Mem. l.c., but see Antiph. de caed. Herod. § 10), sorcerers (Plat. Men. p. 80 B and schol.), pirates (Luc. Navig. 100.14). The same proceeding was extended also to those charged with impiety (Dem. c. Androt. p. 601.27), ill-usage of orphans (Aeschin. c. Tim. § 158, cf. 40), and against metoecs who had, not paid the μετοίκιον (in that case the πωληταὶ had jurisdiction, [Dem.] c. Aristog. i. p. 788.58). As regards the ἀπαγωγὴ τῶν κλεπτῶν, it could be adopted only in the aggravated cases of stealing by night, or stealing in day-time property of greater amount than 50 drachmas, or from a gymnasium or the ports or public baths anything worth 10 drachmas (Dem. c. [p. 1.734]Timocr. p. 735.113 f.; Theophr. Char. ed. Jebb, p. 230).

From a different point of view the law (Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 646.80) directs arrest against a murderer περιιόντα ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἀγοράν, viz. because of his exercising the rights and privileges of an ἐπίτιμος, although disfranchised (Plat. Legg. ix. p. 871 A: cf. the law in Dem. c. Timocr. p. 733.105; c. Lept. p. 504.156; and c. Theocr. p. 1324.10); the same applies to the arrest of exiles who ventured to return home without having procured a revocation of their sentence (Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 629.28; p. 630.31; Dinarch. c. Demosth. § 44; cf. Lycurg. c. Leocr. § 121). Pollux (8.49) states, that ἔνδειξς was adopted περὶ τῶν οὐ παρόντων, ἀπαγωγὴ however, ὅταν τις ὃν ἔστιν ἐνδείξασθαι μὴ παρόντα, τοῦτον παρόντα ἐπ᾽ αὐτοφώρῳ λαβὼν ἀπαγάγῃ, i. e. an ἄτιμος who exercised the rights of an ἐπίτιμος could be arrested only whilst actually exercising such rights; when that moment had passed, he could only be proceeded against by ἔνδειξις. Meuss (de ἀπαγ. act. ap. Athen.) limits ἀπαγωγὴ to the classes of criminals specified in the νόμος κακούργων with its additions, and to the ἄτιμοι (to which class he reckons the ἀσεβεῖς); in all other cases ἀπάγειν is, in his opinion, not used in its technical sense to denote a distinct process, but means simply “to throw into prison,” as when exiles returned without their sentence having been revoked, or when the culprits were not Athenians (the murderers Euxitheus and Agoratus; metoecs who had not paid the μετοίκιον, see Plat. Men. p. 80 B, and Aeschin. c. Tim. § 69, 158, ξένοι); but surely in the case of Euxitheus and Agoratus ἀπαγωγὴ means a distinct process.

Generally the Eleven presided; in a trial for κάκωσις ὀρφανῶν, the archon; for ἀσέβεια, the basileus; when exiles returned without permission, the thesmothetae (Dem. c Aristocr. p. 630.31). The punishment was generally fixed by law; so in a case of ἀπαγωγὴ κακούργων the Eleven, if the accused confessed, could put him to death at once; the same penalty was inflicted on those who returned from exile without permission (Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 630.31; Lye. c. Leocr. § 121) and on those ἄτιμοι who held office (Dem. c. Lept. p. 504.156), and on murderers who visited places from which they were excluded (Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 647.80). Metoecs who had not paid the μετοίκιον, were sold as slaves ([Dem.] c. Aristog. i. p. 787, § § 57, 58; Harp. s. v. μετοίκιον; Pollux, 8.99; [Plut.] Vitt. X. Oratt. p. 842 B).

A person who did not feel himself strong enough to effect an ἀπαγωγὴ had recourse to ἐφήγησις, i. e. he applied to the magistrate and conducted him and his officers to the spot where the capture was to be effected (Dem. c. Androt. p. 601.26; Pollux, 8.50). Ephegesis was also resorted to instead of apagoge, when the culprit was hiding in a house (for no private person was allowed to enter a house ἄνευ ψηφίσματος, Dem. de Cor. p. 271.132; c. Androt. p. 609.52= c. Timocr. p. 751.164; see, however, Lys. c. Eratosth. § 30, and Xen. Hell. 2.4, 14). The grammarians particularly mention that it was adopted against persons who harboured those who had returned from exile without permission (Etym. M. 403, 23, etc.).

Instead of taking the law into his own hands, as in the ἀπαγωγὴ, the prosecutor might simply put the law in motion by applying to the proper authority, who, upon receiving the charge in writing (ἔνδειξις), was bound to arrest or hold to bail the person criminated. This proceeding was instituted against such persons as were alleged to have visited places or exercised rights while labouring under a peculiar disqualification (Harp. s. v.). The Attic lawgiver did not define all the cases when endeixis could be adopted; he starts from one particular case, e. g. against state debtors (Dem. c. Androt. p. 603.33; c. Nicostr. p. 1251.14), and adds analogous instances: hence we find such phrases as καθάπερ ἐάν τις ἄρχῃ ὀφείλων τῷ δημοσίῳ (Dem. c. Timocr. p. 707.22). Thus the proceeding by endeixis was allowable against any one who petitioned for relief from a fine or a judgment-debt, because, being a state-debtor, he was not allowed to appear in the popular assembly (Dem. c. Timocr. p. 716.50; see also c. Lept. p. 504.156); in the same way Pyrrhus was prosecuted by endeixis for acting as dicast (Dem. c. Mid. p. 573.182), and Aristogiton and Theocrines for commencing actions (Dem. Or. xxv. and lviii.), before they had paid their debts to the state. Cephisius laid an ἔνδειξις ἀσεβεὶας against Andocides for attending the Mysteries and entering the Eleusinian temple, thereby violating the decree of Isotimides by which he was excluded from all temples (Andoc. de Myst. § 111). As regards exiles, the law in Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 636.51, has: a person shall not be liable to any legal proceedings for homicide who informs against exiles (ἀνδραφόνους in § 52; cf. [Lys.] c. Andoc. § 15), ἐάν τις κατίῃ ὅποι μὴ ἔξεστιν; probably endeixis could be adopted also against those who harboured such (Dem. c. Polycl. p. 1222.50, ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἐνέχεσθαι τὸν ὑποδεχόμενον τοὺς φεύγοντας). The endeixis, with which Socrates was threatened for refusing as ἐπιστάτης to take the votes of the people in the assembly, must be looked upon as quite an unusual proceeding (Plat. Apol. Socr. 32 B). In some instances, φάσις would have been the more usual form of proceeding, as against persons who sold state property (Schol. Aristoph. Wasps 1103); who furnished supplies to the enemy in war-time (Aristoph. Kn. 278; Andoc. de Red. § 14); who offended against the laws of export and import (C. I. A. ii. No. 546). Sometimes ἐνδεικνύναι seems to be used in a general sense, as in Isocr. c. Callim. § 22, against ambassadors for παραπρεσβεία

Endeixis was generally laid before the Thesmothetae (Dem. c. Timocr. p. 707.22), and in some cases probably before the Eleven (Lex. Seguer. 250, 11; Schol. Aristoph. Wasps 1102); the endeixis against Andocides was, from the nature of the charge, laid before the basileus, who reported it to the prytanes, and they commissioned him to summon Cephisius and Andocides before the senate (Andoc. de Myst. § 111; cf. the passage inserted in the oath of the members of the Boulé after the amnesty of 403: οὐ δέξομαι ἔνδειξιν οὐδὲ ἀπαγωγὴν ἕνεκα τῶν πρότερον γεγενημένων πλὴν τῶν φευγόντων, Andoc. de Myst. § 91).

As to the result of condemnation in a prosecution of this kind, the law ordained that [p. 1.735]he who held an office whilst a debtor to the state should be put to death (Dem. c. Lept. p. 504.156), while it was left to the court to impose the penalty, in case such a person spoke in the popular assembly or acted as dicast (Dem. c. Mid. p. 573.182; [Dem.] c. Aristog. i. p. 797.92). The murderer who returned home clandestinely was put to death ([Lys.] c. Andoc. § 15; see also § 55 and Andoc. de Myst. § 146). The accuser, if he did not receive the fifth part of the votes, had to pay a thousand drachmas and became ἄτιμος (Andoc. de Myst. § 33; cf. Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 647.80; [Andoc.] c. Alcib. § 18). (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, pp. 85-88, 138, 270-294, 779.) [J.S.M] [H.H]

(Appendix). From Ath. Pol. 52 we learn that some ἐνδείξεις were laid before the Eleven and some before the thesmothetae. From 100.29 it appears that during the rule of the Four Hundred they were laid before the generals. This measur was directed against those who prosecuted anyone for anti-constitutional propositions. The ἔνδειξις against persons who acted as dicasts, though disqualified as state-debtors or ἄτιμοι, is discussed in 100.63, ἐνδείκνυται κατὰ τὸ δικαστήριον εἰσαγγελί[α] (Mr. Kenyon now reads . καὶ [εἰς] τὸ δικαστήριον εἰσάγεται), ἐὰν δ᾽ ἁλῷ προστιμ[ῶσιν αὐτ]ῷ οἱ δικασταὶ τι ἂν δοκῇ ἄξιος εἶναι παθε[ῖν] ἀποτῖσαι. ἐὰν δὲ ἀργυρίου τιμηθῇ δεῖ αὐτὸν δεδέ[σθαι] ἕως ἂν ἐκτίσῃ τό τε πρότερον ὄφλημ[α ἐ]φ᾽ ἐνεδείχθη καὶ τι αὐτῷ προστιμήσῃ τ[ὸ δικ]αστήριον.

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