previous next


ANTIGRAPHE´ (ἀντιγραφή) originally signified the writing put in by the defendant in all causes, whether public or private, in answer to the indictment or bill of the prosecutor. But we find the term employed not only for the answer of the defendant, but also for the statement of the plaint (Harpocrat. s. v. ἀντιγραφή: Plato, Apol. Socr. p. 27 C; Schömann, Antiquities, p. 484, E. T., in correction of his former views in Att. Process). Thus the word “plea,” though by no means a coincident term, may be allowed to be a tolerably proximate rendering of antigraphé.

In Attic law, the defendant's answer might consist in a direct denial of the facts alleged, or a justification, leading to a trial on the merits of the case (εὐθυδικία). Thus, the ἀντιγραφὴ preserved or inserted in Dem. in Steph. i. p. 1115, is an instance of the simplest form of indictment and plea: “Apollodorus, the son of Pasion of Acharnae, against Stephanus, son of Menecles of Acharnae, for perjury. The penalty rated, a talent. Stephanus bore false witness against me, when he gave in evidence the matters written in the record. I Stephanus, son of Menecles of Acharnae, witnessed truly when I gave in evidence the matters written in the record.” On this passage C. R. Kennedy notes:: “The two pleadings together, the plaint on the left side, the plea on the right, form (as we should say) the issue on the record. The deposition complained of was annexed.”

The defendant might also, by pleas asserting the incompetency of the court, the disability of the plaintiff, his own privilege, and the like, try to show that the cause in its present state could [p. 1.128]not be brought into court (μὴ εἰσαγώγιμον εἶναι τὴν δίκην). This form of the ἀντιγραφὴ was called παραγραφή, dilatory plea or “demurrer,” and is treated in a separate article [PARAGRAPHÉ].

A third case is that in which the defendant neither meets the allegations of the plaintiff with a direct negative, nor with a demurrer, but resorts to a “cross-action.” This, according to Caillemer, is the most exact sense of ἀντιγραφή. The subject-matter of this cross-action might or might not be connected with that of the suit upon which it retaliated. For instance, the Demosthenic speech against Evergus and Mnesibulus is a cross-action for assault (αἰκίας) upon a primary action for the same: Boeotus meets the claim of his half-brother Mantitheus to a talent as his mother's dowry, with a counterclaim for the same sum (τὴν ἴσην προῖκα) as the dower of his own mother Plango, and the speech περὶ προικὸς μητρῴας is the reply of Mantitheus to this cross-action. As an example of the opposite sort, Aeschines, impeached by Timarchus for misconduct on an embassy (παραπρεσβεία), arraigns the life and morals of his accuser on a charge which, if proved, involved the penalty of ἀτιμία, and so disqualified Timarchus from appearing as a prosecutor in a court of law.

As a check upon vexatious defence as well as frivolous litigation, the loser in a paragraphe (and of course in a cross-action as well) was condemned to pay the ἐπωβελία or penalty attaching to plaintiffs who failed to obtain one-fifth of the votes. As regarded public causes, the statutable penalty of 1000 drachmas was doubtless enforced in cross as in primary actions. [EPOBELIA]

There is yet another sense of the word ἀντιγραφή, in the case of persons who laid claim to an unassigned inheritance. Here, none of the claimants was, properly speaking, either plaintiff or defendant; that is, no δίκη or ἔγκλημα could be strictly said to be directed by one competitor against another, when all came forward voluntarily into court to defend their several titles. This circumstance has been suggested by Schömann as a reason why the documents of each claimant were denoted by the term ἀντιγραφή (Att. Process, p. 465).

[J.S.M] [W.W]

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