) signifies, in its primary and most general sense, a
denunciation of any kind (Schömann, Assemblies,
181), as in, Lys. c. Agorat.
50, 56, etc. The word εἰσαγγέλλειν
first occurs in the psephisma
about the ἀπαρχαί
(soon after the year
446), published by Foucart, Bull, de Corresp.
1880, p. 225 ff., and Sauppe, Attica et Eleusinia.
In the language of the Attic courts,
however, it has been peculiarly applied to three classes of causes (Harpocr.
s. v. εἰσαγγελία
), which we shall discuss
one after another. Of the first of these (ἐπὶ
δημοσίοις ἀδικήμασι μεγίστοις καὶ ἀναβολὴν μὴ
), two definitions are given in the Lex.
p. 667, 12 ff., side by side, ascribed to
Caecilius and Theophrastus (cf. Journ. of Philol.
vi. p. 2)
respectively, which in Pollux, 8.51, and Harpocr. s.v. are somewhat mixed
up. According to Caecilius, it was directed κατὰ
καινῶν καὶ ἀγράφων ἀδικημάτων
: according to
Theophrastus, against certain specified crimes, practically the same which
Hypereides (pro Eux.
22) quotes from the νόμος εἰσαγγελτικός.
These two definitions
refer in Fränkel's opinion (Att. Geschworenger.
77) to two periods, viz. that of Caecilius to the time before Eucleides and
that of Theophrastus to the time following, so that under this archonship
the crimes were specified by law which could be proceeded against by
eisangelia, and the form of procedure was regulated; but when in the trial
of Antiphon etc., he points out (p. 86) as an essential deviation from the
later procedure the fact that the senate referred the case at once to a
court, without first submitting it to the popular assembly, he must have
overlooked [Dem.] c. Euerg.
p. 1152.43, and c.
the case against the corn-dealers in Lys.
Hypereides quotes three classes of crimes as specified in the νόμος εἰσαγγελτικός,
without giving always the
exact wording of the section of the law: 1st, ἐάν
τις τὸν δῆμον τὸν Ἀθηναίων καταλύῃ ἢ συνίῃ ποι ἐπὶ
καταλύσει τοῦ δήμου ἢ ἑταιρικὸν συναγάγῃ
6; Dinarch. c. Dem.
ἢ ἐάν τις πόλιν τινὰ προδῷ ἢ ναῦς ἢ
πεζὴν ἢ ναυτικὴν στρατιάν
(cf. Hyper. pro
18; Schol. Aeschin. c. Tim.
56). To this add
from Theophr. and Pollux: ἢ ἐάν τις εἰς τοὺς
πολεμίους ἄνευ τοῦ πεμφθῆναι παρὰ τοῦ δήμου ἀφικνῆται ἢ
μετοικῇ παῤ αὐτοῖς ἢ στρατεύηται μετ̓ αὐτῶν ἢ δῶρα
λαμβάνῃ παῤ αὐτῶν
(cf. Ps. Plut. Vitt. X. Orat. p. 833
E; Lyc. c.
§ 59; Hyp. pro Lyc.
fr. 2 (p. 23
Bl.), ἢ νεωρίων προδοσίαν ἢ ἀρχείων
ἐμπυρισμὸν ἢ κατάληψιν ἄκρας
Meier) and Alciphr. 1.32). 3rd, ἢ ῥήτωρ ὢν μὴ λέγῃ τὰ ἄριστα τῷ δήμῳ τῷ
Ἀθηναίων χρήματα λαμβάνων.
To this add from Hyp.
100.39, καὶ δωρεὰς παρὰ
τῶν τἀναντία πραττόντων τῷ δήμῳ τῷ Ἀθηναίων
18). Lipsius concludes from the wording of Hypereides (23, τὰ μὲν ἄνω τοῦ νόμου--τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον τοῦ
), that none of the sections of the law was altogether
omitted by him, although each may not be given in its complete form, whilst
others are of opinion that Hypereides only quoted the law as far as the
passage applying to the case in hand. Certain it is that other crimes [p. 1.709]
besides those given above could be proceeded
against by eisangelia, not only by taking terms like κατάλυσις
etc. loosely, as when the adulterer Lycophron was
proceeded against by an εἰσαγγελία
--bitterly does Hypereides complain of the gross abuse
made of eisangelia in this way (pro Eux.
19)--but we learn
from an inscription (from the year 324-3, Boeckh,
p. 540) that eisangelia could be resorted to
ἐάν τις ἀδικῇ περὶ τὰ ἐν τοῖς
(this section of the law is applied by a decree of the
senate to a particular case; see also [Dem.] c. Euerg.
1151.41); and from Dem. c. Phorm.
p. 922.50, and Lys.
it is very probable that it was also
directed against offences committed against the commercial laws (cf. the
eisangelia against Pytheas, περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὸ
Dinarch. vi.); besides, the law which speaks of
eisangelia as applying to ἐάν τις τὸν δῆμον
(Dem. de fals. Leg.
p. 374.103, and c. Timoth.
p. 1204.67) is mentioned as
p. 498.135); or may this clause, as well as the one directing
eisangelia against sycophants (Isocr. Antid.
Lex. Rh. C.
s. v.), be taken as belonging to the third
section of the νόμος
as above quoted? See
also Antiph. de Choreut.
§ 35 (κλοπῆς δημοσίων χρημάτων
); Lys. c. Nicom.;
Aeschin. c. Ctes.
§ 3; Dem. de Reb. in
p. 96.28; and C. I. A.
Eisangeliae could be laid before the senate or the popular assembly. In the
former case the accuser laid his information in writing (also called
34. 137; Hyp. pro Lyc.
3, 4; pro
39 ff.; cf. Plut. Alc. 22
before the prytanes, who reported to the senate on the case (Lys. c.
2, ἐπειδὴ οἱ πρυτάνεις
ἀπέδοσαν εἰς τὴν βούλην περὶ αὐτῶν
). No summons was
issued to the person accused (Lycophron was abroad when information was laid
against him, Hyp. pro Lyc.
3). The senate had a discretionary
power to accept or reject (Lys. c. Nicom.
22); if they
accepted the information, the accused was arrested if necessary (but see
Hyp. pro Eux.
19, ἦ σπάνιον ἰδεῖν
ἀπ̓ εἰσαγγελίας τινὰ κρινόμενον ὑπακούσαντα εἰς τὸ
and Journ. of Philol.
108), and in case of a charge of high treason not released, even if he
offered to find sureties (in the oath of the senators was the phrase:
οὐδὲ δήσω Ἀθηναίων οὐδένα, ὃς ἄν
ἐγγυητὰς τρεῖς καθιστῇ τὸ αὐτὸ τέλος τελοῦντας, πλὴν ἐάν
τις ἐπὶ προδοσίᾳ τῆς πόλεως ἢ ἐπὶ καταλύσει τοῦ δήμου
Dem. c. Timocr.
p. 745.144; cf.
Schol. Aristoph. Eccl. 1089
, κατεχόμενον ἑκατέρωθεν ἀπολογεῖσθαι τὸν κατ᾽
The next step is described in [Dem.] c. Euerg.
p. 1151.41, as
τοὺς πρυτάνεις προγράφειν τὴν κρίσιν ἐπὶ
: i.e. on the first day, after both parties had
been heard, the senate gave their verdict by secret ballot, whether the
defendant was guilty or not; and, if he was found guilty, the senate voted
on a second day by show of hands (διαχειροτονεῖν
) on the question whether they should sentence him
to a fine of 500 drachmas which it was competent for them to impose, or hand
him over to a court. In the latter case the secretary of the prytanes had to
deliver the sentence (ἡ κατάγνωσις
) of the
senate to the thesmothetae, who possessed the ἡγεμονία τοῦ δικαστηρίου
on such occasions (Pollux, 8.87;
Ps. Plut. p. 833 E), and had to bring the case for trial as soon as
possible: if that was not done within thirty days after the arrest, it fell
to the Eleven to bring the case before the court, according to the νόμος
in Dem. c. Timocr.
720.63. The number of dicasts was 1000 (κατὰ
Poll. 8.53), and later on 1500 (κατὰ τὸν Φαληρέα
: cf. Lex. Rhet.
s. v. εἰσαγγελία
); in the
trial of Pistias, 2,500 (Dinarch. c. Dem.
p. 203) concluded from the
fact of there being no mention of a praejudicium
in the decree regarding the trial of Antiphon etc.,
that when the alleged offence was of such a nature as obviously to be beyond
the competency of the senate, a decree was drawn up immediately. Lipsius, on
the other hand, suggests that the senate was authorised by the popular
assembly to direct this trial, as in C. I. A.
1.59, 1. 39 ff.
In some instances belonging to the time before Eucleides, the senate
referred eisangeliae to the popular assembly (Xen.
; Isocr. de
6). Eisangeliae might also be laid directly before the
people at the first assembly of every prytany, which was called κυρία
(Pollux, 8.95, etc.), but not, as he says
(8.87), through the thesmothetae (cf. Boeckh, Kl. Schriften,
v. p. 163); and after the accuser and the defendant had spoken, the people
voted on the question whether the information should be accepted or
rejected. If it was accepted, the senate was commissioned to make a προβούλευμα
for the trial (Xen. Hell. 1.7
, τὴν βουλὴν προβουλεύσασαν εἰσενεγκεῖν.
ὅτῳ τρόπῳ οἱ ἄνδρες κρίνοιντο
: C. I.
2.65); the popular assembly could either sit in judgment on the
case itself (as happened frequently in the time before Eucleides, and only
in isolated instances after that year), or refer it to a Heliastic court (as
in the case of Lycophron, Hyp.,
3; cf. Dem. c.
p. 922.50, and Aristoph. Wasps
ff., ἔτι δ᾽ἡ βουλὴ χὠ δῆμος
ὅταν κρῖναι μέγα πρᾶγμ̓ ἀπορήσῃ, ἐψήφισται τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας
τοῖσι δικασταῖς παραδοῦναι
). If the popular assembly
undertook the trial itself, the proceedings were probably the same as those
described by Xenophon (Xenoph. Hell. 1.7
) on the occasion of the trial of the
generals: a psephisma prescribed the form of the trial and the penalty upon
conviction (θανάτῳ ζημιῶσαι καὶ τοῖς ἕνδεκα
παραδοῦναι καὶ τὰ χρήματα δημοσιεύσαι, τὸ δ᾽ἐπιδέκατον τῆς
). On that particular occasion the people gave
their verdict by ballot, two urns being assigned to each tribe for that
purpose; but from the use of καταχειροτονεῖν
in other passages (e. g. Lys. c.
2; Dem. de fals. Leg.
p. 350.31, etc.) it
seems probable that this was not invariably the rule. What happened when the
popular assembly decided to refer the trial to a Heliastic court, may be
learnt from the cases of Archeptolemus, Onomacles, and Antiphon. The senate
authorised by the people passed a decree which directed that the accused
should be arrested, that the thesmothetae should summon them on the day
following the issue of the decree, and bring the cases into court on the day
fixed in the summons; that the generals, assisted by such συνήγοροι,
not more than ten in number, as they
might choose from the senate, and by any other person that might wish to [p. 1.710]
join them, should prosecute them for treason, and
that the court should deal with those found guilty κατὰ τὸν νόμον ὃς κεῖται περὶ τῶν προδόντων.
Plut. p. 834 A quotes also the judgment of the court. Since Onomacles is not
included in it, nor mentioned by Lys. c. Eratosth.
author of the life (2) of Thucydides deserves no credit in the face of such
evidence), he was probably acquitted; if he had fled, as Grote (vii. p. 326)
suggests, he would have been condemned to death, etc., along with the others
(cf. Dion. Halic. de Dinarch.
δὲ εἰσαγγελθέντων τοὺς μὲν οὐχ ὑπομείναντας τὴν κρίσιν
ἀνεθανάτωσαν τῇ ψήφῳ
). No direction as to penalty was
needed, when that was fixed by law (probably from the middle of the 4th
century: see the trial of Cephisodotus in 359 B.C.,
πέντε ταλάντοις δ᾽ἐζημιώσατε, τρεῖς δὲ μόναι
ψῆφοι διήνεγκαν τὸ μὴ θανάτου τιμῆσαι,
p. 676.167; Schol. Aeschin. c. Ctes.
51, 52), viz. death and refusal of burial in Attic territory (Journ.
iv. p. 105, and 8.1 ff.): nor are συνήγοροι
as representatives of the people
before the court ever mentioned in the 4th century; for those in the
speeches of Hypereides are clearly selected by the accusers themselves
15, and pro Eux.
46). As to the
penalty in the event of the accuser not obtaining the votes of as many as a
fifth of the dicasts, the grammarians disagree: Harpocration speaks of a
fine of 1000 drachmas, and adds, τὸ δὲ παλαιὸν καὶ
οὗτοι μειζόνως ἐκολάζοντο
: the Lex. Cant.
(p. 677, 12) has simply οἱ δικασταὶ
Pollux quotes Hypereides to show that the accuser was
and adds Theophrastus'
statement (περὶ νόμων,
Journ. of Philol.
vi. p. 2 and 14 ff.) that a fine of
1000 drachmas was imposed. The facts of the case are that the accuser was at
one time ἀκίνδυνος
7 and 10), but that this impunity was discontinued (probably
διὰ τοὺς ῥᾳδίως εἰσαγγέλλοντας,
Pollux, l. l.
); and the prominent mention by
Demosthenes (de Cor.
p. 310.250) of the fact of
his accusers (in the period following the disaster of Chaeroneia) having not
received τὸ μέρος τῶν ψήφων,
τὸ πέμπτον μέρος,
clearly shows that it
had become a matter of importance to obtain the fifth part, that otherwise
the accusers subjected themselves to a penalty, viz. 1000 drachmas; cf.
Lycurg. c. Leocr.
3 (Att. Process,
Lipsius, pp. 312-329).
Of the two other classes of causes which equally bore the name of eisangelia,
the former consists of cases of alleged κάκωσις,
i. e. wrong done to orphans (Isae. Hagn.
15), heiresses (Isae. Pyrrh.
46; Dem. c.
p. 980, 46, and fr. 5=Poll. 8.53), and widows ὅσαι μένουσιν ἐν τοῖς οἴκοις τῶν ἀνδρῶν τῶν
τεθνηκότων φάσκουσαι κυειν,
Lex ap. [Dem.] c.
p. 1076.75: not to parents, as Schömann
181) supposed, Harpocration's definition
ἐπὶ ταῖς κακώσεσιν
being too wide
(cf. Att. Proc.
ed. Lipsius, p. 358, n. 443). Upon such
occasions the informer (any Athenian citizen might undertake the accusation,
Harpocr. s. v. κακώσεως
) laid his
indictment before the archon, if the aggrieved persons were of a free Attic
family; or before the polemarch, if they were resident aliens. The
peculiarities of this kind of cause were, that the informer and the
defendant were not limited as to time in their speeches before the court
), and that the informer
incurred no penalty whatever upon failing to obtain a verdict (οὔτε γὰρ ἐπιτίμιον ταῖς πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα
εἰσαγγελίαις ἔπεστιν, οὐδ̓ ἐὰν μηδεμίαν τῶν ψήφων οἱ
εἰσαγγείλαντες μεταλάβωσιν, οὔτε πρυτανεῖα οὔτε παράστασις
οὐδεμία τίθεται τῶν εἰσαγγελιῶν: ἀλλὰ τοῖς μὲν διώκουσιν
ἀκινδύνως εἰσαγγέλλειν ἔξεστι, τῷ βουλομένῳ,
de Pyrrh. her.
§ 47: cf. Dem. c.
p. 980.46; Att. Proc.
p. 332 f.). With
respect to the accused it is obvious that the cause must have been τιμητός,
i. e. that the court would have the
power of fixing the amount of penalty upon conviction; ἔσχαται τιμωρίαι,
Isae. de Pyrrh. her.
§ 47, ἐκινδύνευεν ἂν περὶ τοῦ
(i. e. περὶ τῆς
Meier, de Bon. Damn.
p. 143, n. 468)
καὶ τῆς οὐσίας ἁπάσης,
de Hagn. her.
35, and Dem. c. Pantaen.
981.49. (Att. Process,
p. 359, n. 449; Schömann on
Isaeus, de Pyrrh. her.
The third kind of eisangelia was available against διαιτηταί.
Our information on this subject is very limited:
Harp. εἰ γάρ τις ὑπὸ διαιτητοῦ ἀδικηθείη,
ἐξῆν τοῦτον εἰσαγγέλλειν τρὸς τοὺς δικαστὰς καὶ ἁλοὺς
(cf. Schol. Plat. Legg.
xi. p. 926
D; Bekk. Anecd.
235; and Pollux, 8.126, καὶ ἀτιμία ἀφώριστο τῷ μὴ δικαίως
etc., p. 15, διαιτήσαντι
) and Dem. c. Mid.
p. 542.86 ff.).
In Hudtwalcker's opinion (ü. d. Diäteten,
p. 24 ff.) the διαιτηταὶ
had to meet
annually in the last month but one, probably in the market-place in front of
the senate-house, to be at hand in case a person wished to complain of a
verdict given by any one of them (a kind of εὔθυναι,
but see Att. Process,
p. 260, n. 159);
such a complaint was called eisangelia. To this class belonged the complaint
of Midias, which was laid before the senate (πρυτανεύοντα
H. explains president of the senate). Against
this interpretation Lipsius urges that the words τὴν
τελευταίαν ἡμέραν τῶν διαιτητῶν
point to Straton as still in office. The correct
explanation of the passage is given by Bergk (Zeitschrift. f.
1849, p. 273 ff.); he shows that the διαιτηταὶ
were a properly constituted body under
the presidency of prytanes, and had the power of expelling a member for
misconduct (as the senate of 500 and the Areiopagus possessed over their
respective members). This happened in Straton's case: Midias laid an
information against him before the διαιτηταὶ
at their last meeting (B. alters rather needlessly in
Harp. πρὸς τοὺς διαιτητὰς
to πρὸς τοὺς δικαστὰς,
and interprets ἡμέραν εἰς ἣν,
), which was not numerously attended, without having informed Straton of his
intention, and induced the chairman (of the διαιτηταί
), in the absence of Straton, to have the case decided
by the vote of those present; the result was that Straton was expelled
) and became ἄτιμος,
and this verdict was confirmed by the
dicasts on appeal (p. 543.91). (Fränkel, p. 73 n.; Att.
ed. Lipsius, pp. 333 and 1013.) [H.H
Εἰσαγγέλλειν πρὸς τὴν τῶν Ἀρεοπαγειτῶν
is used in Ath. Pol. 4 (for the time before
Solon) of one who had been illegally dealt with by a magistrate, and
now pointed out the law which had not been observed (ἐξῆν δὲ τῷ ἀδικουμένῳ τρὸ[ς τὴν τῶν]
Ἀρεοπαλειτ[ῶν] βουλὴν εἰσαγγέλλειν ἀποφαίνοντι παῤ ὃν
Under the rule of the Four Hundred it was proposed to abolish
τὰς τῶν παρανόμων γραφας καὶ τὰς
etc. ὅπως ἂν
οἱ ἐθέλοντες Ἀθηναῖοι συμβουλεύωσι περὶ τῶν
etc. (100.29). Anyone accusing such
persons as had come forward with proposals was to be punished most
severely: ἔνδειξιν αὐτοῦν εἶναι καὶ
ἀπαγωγὴν πρὸς τοὺς στρατηγούς, τοὺς δὲ στρατηγοὺς
παραδοῦναι τοῖς ἕνδεκα θανάτῳ ζημιῶσαι.
gives a much briefer account.)
Among the instances of gross abuse of the eisangelia Hyper.
col. 19 mentions that of Diognides and
the metoec Antidorus against whom an eisangelia was laid, ὡς πλέονος μισθοῦντες τὰς αὐτητρίδας ἢ ὁ
--this very law is quoted in 100.50.
From 100.45 we learn that in former times the senate had summary
jurisdiction, χρήμασιν ζημιῶσαι καὶ δῆσαι
but that, when they were on the
point of putting a certain Lysimachus to death, they were deprived
of it by the people. This does not agree with 100.48, καὶ ταῦτα εἰσπρά[ττειν ἡ βο]υλὴ καὶ δῆσαι
[κυρ]ία κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ἐστίν
: cf. C. I.
ii. No. 809 b (B.C. 325-4). In the time of
Demosthenes the senate was competent to impose a fine of 500
drachmae (Dem. c. Everg.
1152.43), nor was the eisangelia laid by a private individual before
the senate, at that time confined fined to charges against
magistrates for not carrying out the laws, as described in 100.45
(ἔξεστι δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἰδιώταις
εἰσαγγέλλειν ἣν ἂν βούλωνται τῶν ἀρχῶν μὴ χρῆσθαι
The passage about the functions of the thesmothetae in Pollux, 8.87
f., is almost verbally taken from 100.59; thus the statement that
they laid the eisangeliae before the popular assembly, which Boeckh
considered wrong and due to a misapprehension of some sort, is taken
from the Ἀθην. πολ.
But whilst the Ἀθην. πολ.
has: καὶ γραφὰς
παρανόμων καὶ νόμον μὴ ἐπιτήδειον θεῖναι καὶ προεδρικὴν
καὶ ἐπιστατικὴν καὶ στρατηψοῖς εὐθύνας,
strangely enough omits προεδρικὴν καὶ
Harpocr., s. v. ῥητορικὴ γραφή,
mentions the πρυτανικὴ καὶ ἐπιστατικὴ γραφή
Among the charges laid before the Archon are mentioned in 100.56
(Mr. Wyse) κακώσεως,
with the remark αὗται δέ εἰσιν ἀζήμιοι τῷ βουλομένῳ
: this seems to point to the εἰσαγγελία κακώσεως γονέων,
p. 269, 5 f., and Harpocr, s. v. κακώσεως.
In 100.53 the eisangelia against διαιτηταὶ
is mentioned: ἔστι δὲ
καὶ εἰσαγγέλλειν εἰς τοὺς διαιτητὰς
Mr. Kenyon reads δικαστὰς
) ἐάν τις ἀδικηθῇ ὑπὸ τοῦ διαιτητοῦ, κἄν
τινος καταγνῶσιν ἀτιμοῦσθαι κελεύουσιν οἱ νόμοι. ἔφεσις
δ᾽ ἐστὶ καὶ τούτοις.
Appeal to a lawcourt was
inferred by Fränkel, Att. Geschworenger,
73 n., from Dem. c. Mid.
p. 543.91. The reading of
the payrus εἰς τοὺς διαιτητὰς
ought not to have been altered to εἰς τοὺς
on the authority of Harpocr. s. v. εἰσαγγελία
: Bergk's alteration there
from πρὸς τοὺς δικαστὰς
πρὸς τοὺς διαιτητὰς
out by [p. 1.1068]
the papyrus. [In the article in
Vol. I. p. 710 b,
Bergk's reading is by
a printer's error wrongly given; read also Schol. Plat.
p. 920 D instead of p. 926 D.]