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.
§ 91; Dem. c. Lept.
504.156; c. Timocr.
p. 745.146; [Dem.] c.
p. 1325.11); and sometimes the same case is now called
Thus Antiphon's Or. de caed.
is the speech of defence in an ἀπαγωγὴ φόνου
( § 9, 85), yet in § 9 we
This, however, should
not have misled Jebb (Att. Orat.
i. p. 57) into saying that
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
is wrong (Blass, d. Att. Bereds.
552). The similarity of procedure shows itself in this, that there was no
and that when the
magistrate accepted the charge (called ἀπαγωγή,
Lys. c. Agor.
§ 85, or
p. 1322.1, respectively), the defendant was kept in prison,
unless he could find three sureties (Dem. c. Timocr.
746.146; c. Nicostr.
p. 1251.14; Dinarch. c.
§ 9; see, however, Andoc. de Myst.
§ 2, οὔτ᾽ ἐγγυητὰς καταστήσας, οὔθ̀
ὑπὸ δες μῶν ἀναγκασθείς
). From Antiph. de caed.
§ 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.
) was a summary process in
which the prosecutor led the culprit caught flagrante
§ 28; Dem. c. Steph.
i. p. 1126.81; Xen. Mem. 1.2
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,
col. 22; ἀπάγειν τοῖς
Dem. c. Timocr.
p. 736.113; εἰς τὸ δεσμωτηριον,
p. 647.80, etc.; ἀποδέχεσθαι, παραδέχεσθαι
is said of the Eleven, Lys.
1.10, c. Agor.
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
essential for establishing the charge, but meaning practically no more than
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
stripped Ariston of his cloak and carried it off, Dem. c.
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
) say, “The plaintiffs friends meant that Conon might
have been captured flagrante delicto,
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᾽
in the charge is not pointed out as a flaw by the
defendant; but this does not show, as Sorof suggests (Jahrb. f. cl.
1883, p. 110), that ἐπ᾽
was not at that time insisted upon and only became
essential after Eucleides: the defendant protests against the prosecution by
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
τῶν κακούργων νόμος,
Antiph. de caed. Herod.
§ 9, with two additions, cf.
a, and C. I. A.
ii. No. 476, 1.
56), such as thieves (Antiph. de caed. Herod.
1.10; c. Agor.
§ 68), burglars
p. 940.47), kidnappers (ἀνδραποδισταί,
Isocr. de Permut.
Xen. Mem. 1.2
), and persons who contravened the market-regulations (Athen. 6.226
a, and C. I.
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.
i. p. 767; Xen. Mem.
see Antiph. de caed. Herod.
§ 10), sorcerers (Plat.
p. 80 B and schol.), pirates (Luc.
100.14). The same proceeding was extended also to
those charged with impiety (Dem. c. Androt.
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.
p. 788.58). As regards the ἀπαγωγὴ τῶν
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. 735.113 f.; Theophr.
ed. Jebb, p. 230).
From a different point of view the law (Dem. c. Aristocr.
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.
ix. p. 871 A: cf. the law in Dem. c.
p. 733.105; c. Lept.
p. 504.156; and
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.
§ 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.
act. ap. Athen.
) limits ἀπαγωγὴ
to the classes of criminals specified in the νόμος κακούργων
with its additions, and to the
(to which class he reckons the
); 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.
); but surely in the case of
Euxitheus and Agoratus ἀπαγωγὴ
Generally the Eleven presided; in a trial for κάκωσις
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
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.
§ 121) and on those ἄτιμοι
who held office (Dem. c.
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;
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.
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
Dem. de Cor.
271.132; c. Androt.
p. 609.52= c. Timocr.
751.164; see, however, Lys. c. Eratosth.
§ 30, and
Xen. Hell. 2.4
). 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
), 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.
p. 603.33; c. Nicostr.
p. 1251.14), and
adds analogous instances: hence we find such phrases as καθάπερ ἐάν τις ἄρχῃ ὀφείλων τῷ
(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.
p. 716.50; see also c. Lept.
p. 504.156); in
the same way Pyrrhus was prosecuted by endeixis for acting as dicast (Dem.
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
§ 111). As regards exiles, the law in Dem.
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.]
§ 15), ἐάν τις
κατίῃ ὅποι μὴ ἔξεστιν;
probably endeixis could be
adopted also against those who harboured such (Dem. c.
p. 1222.50, ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς
ἐνέχεσθαι τὸν ὑποδεχόμενον τοὺς φεύγοντας
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.
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.
; Andoc. de Red.
§ 14); who offended
against the laws of export and import (C. I. A.
ii. No. 546).
seems to be used in
a general sense, as in Isocr. c. Callim.
against ambassadors for παραπρεσβεία
Endeixis was generally laid before the Thesmothetae (Dem. c.
p. 707.22), and in some cases probably before the Eleven
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
§ 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,
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.
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.
p. 573.182; [Dem.] c. Aristog.
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
§ 33; cf. Dem. c. Aristocr.
[Andoc.] c. Alcib.
§ 18). (Att.
ed. Lipsius, pp. 85-88, 138, 270-294, 779.) [J.S.M
. From Ath. Pol. 52
we learn that some ἐνδείξεις
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
(Mr. Kenyon now reads ἐ. καὶ [εἰς] τὸ δικαστήριον εἰσάγεται
ἐὰν δ᾽ ἁλῷ προστιμ[ῶσιν αὐτ]ῷ οἱ
δικασταὶ ὅ τι ἂν δοκῇ ἄξιος εἶναι παθε[ῖν] ἢ ἀποτῖσαι.
ἐὰν δὲ ἀργυρίου τιμηθῇ δεῖ αὐτὸν δεδέ[σθαι] ἕως ἂν
ἐκτίσῃ τό τε πρότερον ὄφλημ[α ἐ]φ᾽ ᾧ ἐνεδείχθη καὶ ὅ τι
αὐτῷ προστιμήσῃ τ[ὸ δικ]αστήριον.