may be translated an advocate or counsel, though such translation will
convey to the English reader a more comprehensive meaning than the Greek
word strictly bears.
According to the ancient practice of the Athenian law, parties to an action
were obliged to conduct their own causes without assistance (Quint.
2.15, 30); but on the increase of litigation the
sciences of law and rhetoric began to unfold themselves, and men who had
paid no attention to these were unable to compete with more experienced
opponents. To consult a friend before bringing an action, or about the best
means of preparing a defence, were obvious expedients. It was but another
step to have a speech prepared by such friend out of court, to be delivered
by the party himself when the cause was brought to trial. A class of persons
thus sprang up, somewhat in the nature of chamber counsel, who received
money for writing speeches and giving legal advice to those who consulted
them (Isocr. de Perm.
§ 41). [LOGOGRAPHI
] Antiphon was the
first who made a profession of it ([Plut.] Vitt. X. Oratt.
832 C; according to Paus. 6.17
, it was Tisias). Still, whatever assistance the
party might have received out of court, the law which compelled him to
appear in person at the trial remained in force; although the prohibition to
speak by counsel was so far relaxed, that if the party was labouring under
illness, or through any physical or mental debility was unable to conduct
his own cause without manifest disadvantage, he might (by permission of the
court) procure a relation or friend to speak for him. Thus, when Miltiades
was impeached for treason, and by reason of a gangrene iii his hip was
unable to plead his own cause, he was brought on a litter into court, and
his brother Tisagoras addressed the people on his behalf (Corn. Nep. Milt. 100.7
). So, when
Isocrates was ill, his son Aphareus spoke for him in the cause about the
([Plut.] Vitt. X.
p. 839 C). And in the speech of Demosthenes against
Leochares we see that the son conducts his father's cause (p. 1081.4). As a
general rule, the party was expected to address the court himself; for the
judges liked to form an opinion of him from his voice, look, and demeanour;
and therefore, if a man distrusted his own ability, he would open the case
himself by a short speech, and then ask permission for his friend or friends
to come forward (Hyper. pro Eux.
100.25 f.; pro
100.8 f.; [Dem.] c. Phorm.
p. 1349.14; Aeschin. c. Ctes.
§ 202, etc.: cf. SYNDICUS
). This was seldom refused; and in the time of the orators
the practice was so well established, that the principal speeches in the
cause were not unfrequently made by the advocate. The defence by Demosthenes
of Ctesiphon against Aeschines may be cited as
an example. In this it will be seen that Demosthenes was as much interested
as the defendant himself; and it is further to be observed, that the
advocate was looked upon with more favour on this very account; for as no
fees were allowed to be taken, a speaker was regarded with suspicion who had
no apparent motive for undertaking the cause of another person. Hence we
find in most of the συνηγορικοὶ λόγοι,
that the speaker avows what his motives are; as, for instance, that he is
connected by blood or friendship with the one party, or at enmity with the
other, or that he has a stake in the matter at issue between them. (See the
opening of the speeches of Isaeus de Nicost. her.
de Philoct. her.;
Isocrates, c. Euthyn.;
and Demosthenes, c. Lept.
and c. Androt.:
Lyc. c. Leocr.
§ 138, ἐκπέπληγμαι μάλιστα ἐπὶ τοῖς μήτε γένει μήτε φιλίᾳ μηδὲν
προσήκουσι, μισθοῦ δὲ συναπολογουμένοις ἀεὶ τοῖς
etc.) In the cause against Leochares above cited, it
is evident that the son had an equal interest with his father in preserving
the inheritance, and therefore he would be considered in the light of a
party. The law which prohibited the advocate from taking fees, under peril
of a γραφὴ
before the Thesmothetae ([Dem.]
ii. p. 1137.26; cf. Plat. Legg.
11.15, p. 937 E f.), made no provision (and perhaps it was impossible to
make an effective provision) against an influence of a more pernicious kind,
viz. that of political association, which induced men to support the members
of their club or party without the least regard for the right or justice of
the case (ξυνωμοσίαι ἐπὶ δίκαις καὶ ἀρχεῖς,
). Hence the frequent allusions by the
orators to the ἐργαστήρια συκοφαντῶν, μοχθηρῶν
ἀνθρώπων συνεστηκότων, παρασκευὰς λόγων, μαρτύρων,
all which expressions have reference to that system of
confederation at Athens, by which individuals endeavoured to influence and
control the courts of justice. (See ERANI;
SYCOPHANTES; Reiske, Index in Orat. Att.
s. vv. Ἐργαστήριον
) That friends were often requested to plead, not
on account of any incapacity in the party, but in order that by their
presence they might exert an influence on the bench, is evident fiom an
attentive perusal of the orators. In some cases this might be a properly
legitimate course, as where a defendant charged with some serious crime
called a man of high reputation to speak in his behalf, and pledge himself
thereby that he believed the charge was groundless. (For this reason
Lycurgus was in great request as συνήγορος
[Plut.] Vitt. X. Oratt.
p. 841 E; Rutil. Lup. de
2.4.) With such view Aeschines, cn his trial for misconduct in
the embassy, prayed the aid of Eubulus and Phocion, the latter of whom he
had previously called as a witness (Aeschin. F. L.
In cases of dispute concerning the amount of tribute to be paid, the members
of the confederacy might either plead their cause themselves (Antiph. fr.
48 ff.) or through συνήγοροι
were chosen to represent the
in the assembly of
the phratry (C. I. A.
ii. No. 841 b, 50.31 ff.).
) was also the name given to the public advocates
appointed to manage the prosecution in causes of importance, wherein the
state was materially interested, more especially in those which were brought
before the court upon an εἰσαγγελία
the fifth century, Lipsius, Leipz. Stud.
vi. p. 320). Thus,
Pericles was appointed, not at his own desire, to assist in the impeachment
of Cimon (εἷς τῶν κατηγόρων ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου
Plut. Per. 10
). The generals might choose
from the senate (συνήγοροι,
not more than
ten in number, to assist in prosecuting Antiphon, Archiptolemus, and
Onomacles for treason ([Plut.] Vitt. X. Oratt.
p. 833 E).
Public prosecutors were chosen by the people to bring to trial Demosthenes,
and others charged with having received bribes from Harpalus (ten κατήγοροι,
Dinarch. c. Dem.
§ 51; c. Aristog.
§ 6: see also Jebb,
i. p. 222). [RHETORICE GRAPHE
fee of a drachm (τὸ συνηγορικὸν
by Aristophanes (Aristoph. Wasps 691
was probably the sum paid to the public advocate per
whenever he was employed on behalf of the state.
In ordinary cases, however, the accuser or prosecutor (κατήγορος
) was a distinct person from the συνήγορος,
who acted only as auxiliary to him.
It might be, indeed, that the συνήγορος
performed the most important part at the trial, as Anytus and Lycon are said
to have done on the trial of Socrates, wherein Meletus was prosecutor; or it
might be that he performed a subordinate part, making only a short speech in
support. But, however this might be, he was in point of law an auxiliary
only, and was neither entitled to a share of the reward (if any) given by
the law to a successful accuser, nor liable, on the other hand, to a penalty
of a thousand drachmas, or the ἀτιμία
consequent upon a failure to get a fifth part of the votes. Here we must
distinguish between an advocate and a joint prosecutor. The latter stood
probably precisely in the same situation as his colleague, just as a
co-plaintiff in a civil action. The names of both would appear in the bill
), both would attend the
and would in short have the
same rights and liabilities; the elder of the two only having priority in
certain matters of form, such as the πρωτολογία
p. 592). In the proceeding against the law of Leptines,
there were two prosecutors, Aphepsion and Ctesippus the son of Chabrias;
each addressed the court, Aphepsion first, as being the elder; each had his
advocate, the one Phormio, the other Demosthenes (argum.
p. 453 f.).
There seems to have been no law which limited the number of persons who might
appear as advocates, either in public or private causes. There was, however,
this practical limitation, that as the time allowed for speaking to either
party was in most cases measured by the clepsydra, if either chose to employ
a friend to speak for him, he subtracted so much from the length of his own
speech as he meant to leave for that of his friend, and the whole time
allowed was precisely the same, whatever the number of persons who spoke on
one side (this applied also to the public advocates, Dinarch. c.
§ 114; c. Aristog.
§ 6; for an
exception, see HERES
parties were usually (not always: cf. Dem. F. L.
allowed to make two speeches, the plaintiff beginning, the defendant [p. 2.746]
following, then the plaintiff replying, and lastly
the defendant again. These are often called λόγοι
respectively, but are not to be confounded with the συνηγορίαι
which immediately followed the speech of the party in whose favour they were
made. (Att. Process,
ed. Lipsius, pp. 920-925, 759.)
With respect to the custom of producing friends to speak in mitigation of
damages or punishment, see TIMEMA
As to the public advocates appointed to defend the old laws
before a Heliastic court, see SYNDICUS,
It has been shown clearly by Schömann, that Petitus was wrong in
supposing that the orators or statesmen who spoke in the assembly are called
iii 3, p. 344 f., “Quamquam inter Magistratus censendi non sint
Oratores, tamen ἐν τοῖς ἰδιώταις
sunt numerandi, cum expressis verbis distinguantur ab iis in Aeschinis
Or. adv. Tim.
( § 8), τρίτον δ᾽ἐφεξῆς τοὺς περὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἡλικιῶν, οὐ μόνον
περὶ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τῶν ῥητόρων
. Nemo autem temere huic Oratorum albo adscribebatur, sed quotannis
decem sorte legebantur, qui drachmam de publico accipiebant, eo, quo
orabant, die docet Aristoteles ap. Schol. Aristoph. ad hunc e Vespis
versum (689): ἐλάμβανον γὰρ οἱ ῥήτορες δραχμήν, ὅτε συνηγόρουν ὑπὲρ
τῆς πόλεως ἢ ὑπὲρ ἄλλου τινός. ἐκ τούτου δὲ φαίνεται
ὅτι μισθοφόρος ἦν ἡ ἀρχή. κληρωτοὺς δὲ γενομένους δέκα
συνηγόρους Ἀριστοτέλης φησίν.
Qui enim συνήγοροι
hic dicuntur, ii sunt ῥήτορες,
” etc.). The speakers in the
popular assembly are always distinguished by the title of ῥήτορες
or, if they possessed much influence with the people,
: and it is not to be supposed
that they constituted a distinct class of persons, inasmuch as any Athenian
citizen was at liberty to address the assembly when he pleased; though, as
it was found in practice
that the possession of
was confined to a few persons who
were best fitted for it by their talent and experience, such persons
acquired the title of ῥήτορες,
(Schömann, de Comit.
pp. 107-109, 210;
Journ. of Philol.
iv. p. 90 f.). There appears, however,
to have been a regular appointment of συνήγοροι,
ten in number, with whom the Scholiast on Aristoph.
confounded the ῥήτορες
or orators, viz. the officers who assisted the
Logistae in auditing magistrates' accounts: cf. Bekk. Anecd.
i. p. 301, 4, συνήγοροι ἄρχοντες ἦσαν κληρωτοὶ
οἳ τοῖς λογισταῖς ἐβοήθουν πρὸς τὰς εὐθύνας τῶν ἀρξάντων
: and Lex. Rhetor. Cantabr.
672, 24, Λογιστὰς αἱροῦνται δέκα . . . καὶ
ἄλλους δέκα συνηγόρους οἵτινες συνανακρίνουσι τούτοις
Photius, s. v. οὐ μόνον οἱ τοῖς ἰδιώταις
συναγορεύοντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄρχοντες Ἀθήνησιν.
the oath of the συνήγοροι
Myrrhinusians in C. I. A.
ii. No. 578; R. Schöll,
de Syneg. Att.
p. 30 ff. Aristotle (Aristot. Pol. 7.5
(8 B), § 10)
says that the authorities to whom magistrates rendered their accounts were
called in some of the Greek states εὔθυνοι
(e. g. in Teos, Dittenberger, Syll.
No. 349, 58 ff.), in
(e. g. in Ephesus,
No. 253, 29 ff.; Issa, C. I.
No. 1834, etc.), in others ἐξετασταί
(e. g. in Erythrae, Dittenberger,
No. 370, 25; in Nesos, Hicks, Manual,
No. 138, etc.), and in others συνήγοροι
g. in Iasus, Dittenberger, No. 77, 11; Gilbert, Handb. d. Griech.
ii. p. 336). (Att. Process,
Lipsius, p. 115.) Three συνήγοροι
mentioned in a decree of Zelea, to be chosen by lot from amongst nine
citizens elected to act as ἀνευρεταὶ τῶν χωρίων
etc. (Dittenberger, Syll.
113, 1. 30 ff.) [H.H
. For the συνήγοροι τῶν λογιστῶν,
see App. s. v. EUTHYNE