ANTIGRAPHE´
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]
