Scanned text contains errors.

ANAKRISIS.

were founded on justice, and in accordance with the laws. But each of the litigant -parties might denounce the witnesses of his opponent as false witnesses, and thus a secondary lawsuit might be interwoven with the principal one. If the Siapap-rvpia was resorted to in a civil case, the party who made use of it had to deposit a sum of money (TrajOaKaragoATj), and when the plaintiff lost his suit, he had to pay to the defendant a fine for having raised an accusation without foundation. In lawsuits about the succession to the property of a person, the Biap-aprvpia was the cnly form in which objections could be raised. (Bekker, Aneodot. p. 236.) The -rrapaypa^T] was an ob­jection in writing, which was made by the de­fendant, without his employing any witnesses, and which was decided upon in court; and in this, also, the loser had to pay a fine to the party that gained the suit. (Pollux, viii. 58.) When the plaintiff gained his case, the prosecution pro­ceeded in its regular course. The ai/rr/pa^1^, however, might be something more than a mere objection, inasmuch as the defendant might turn against the plaintiff, and raise an accusation against him. Such an accusation very commonly con­sisted in the defendant charging his accuser with having no right to claim the privileges of an Athenian citizen, in consequence of which the latter was prevented from exercising those privi­leges until he had established his claims to them. This kind of az/rrypa^?] was frequently a mere device to annoy the plaintiff.

These are, in general, the proceedings in the avditpicris : and from what thus took place, it is clear that the main part of the evidence on both sides was brought out in the aydicpKris, and at the regular trial in court the main object was to work upon the minds of the judges through the in­fluence of the orators, with reference to the evi­dence brought out in the avdKfJtcris. The latter, therefore, consisted of the simple evidence which required no oratorical discussion, and which was contained,— 1. in laws ; 2. in documents ; 3. in the statement of free witnesses ; 4. in the state­ment of slaves ; and 5. in oaths. In all these kinds of evidence, one party might have recourse to the TrpoKXycriS) that is, call upon the other party to bring forward such other evidence as was not already given. (Demosth. c. Stepli. p. 1006, c. T/ieocr. p. .987, c. Pantaen. p. 978.) There was, however, no strict obligation to comply with such a demand (Demosth. c.Olymp. p. 1181), and in certain cases the party called upon might, in ac­cordance with established laws, refuse to comply with the demand ; for instance, persons belonging to the same family could not be compelled to ap­pear as witnesses against one another. (Demosth. c. Tim. p. 1195.) But if the reading of a docu­ment, throwing light upon the point at issue, was refused, the other party might bring in a simi els

In regard to the laws which either party might adduce in its support, it must be observed, that copies of them had to be read in the anacrisis, since it would have been difficult for any magis-gistrate or judge to fix, at once, upon the law or laws bearing upon the question at issue. In what manner the authorities were enabled to insure faithful and correct copies being taken of the laws, is not known ; but it is highly probable that any one who took a copy in the archives, had to get

ANAKRISIS. 93

the signature of some public officer or scribe to attest the correctness of the copy.

Other legal documents, such as contracts (ottf-0f}/ccu, ffvyypa<pai)9 wills, books of accounts, and other records (Demosth. p. Phorm. p. 950), not only .required the signature and seal of the party concerned, but their authenticity had to be attested by witnesses. (Demosth. c. Onet. p. 869).

Evidence (paprvpicC) was given not only by free-born and grown-up citizens, but also by strangers or aliens (Demosth. c. Lacrit. pp. 927, 929, 930, 937), and even from absent persons evidence might be procured (e/c/xaprupfa, Demosth. c. Steph. p. 1130 ; Pollux, viii. 36), or a statement of a deceased person might be referred to (a/coV /.iapri/puV, Demosth. c. Steph. p. 1130, c. Leoch. p. 1097). If any one was called upon to bear witness (/cA^Teueij/), he could not refuse it; and if he refused, he might be compelled to pay a fine of 1000 drachmae (Demosth. de Fals. Leg. pp. 396, 403 ; Aeschin. c. Timocr. p. 71), unless he could establish by an oath (e£eyjuo<rfa), that he was unable to give his evidence in the case. Any one who had promised to bear witness, and afterwards failed to do so, became liable to the action of Site?) Aenro/jLapTvpiov or &d€v]s. The evidence of an avowed friend or enemy of either party might be rejected. (Aeschin. c. Timocr. p. 72.) All evi­dence was either taken down in writing as it was given by the witnesses, or in case of its having been sent in previously in writing, it was read aloud to the witness for his recognition, and he had generally to confirm his statement by an oath. (Demosth. c. Stepli. pp. 1115, 1119, 1130, c. Con. p. 1269 ; comp. Diog. Laert. iv. 7.) The testi­mony of slaves was valid only when extorted by instruments of torture, to which either one party might offer to expose a slave, or the other might demand the torture of a slave. (Demosth. c. Ni-costr. p. 1254, c. Apliob. p. 855, c, Onet. p. 874, c. Steph. p. 1135.)

A distinct oath was required in cases where there were no witnesses or documents, but it has been remarked above that oaths were also taken to confirm the authenticity of a document, or the truth of a statement of a witness. [jusjurandum.]

If the evidence produced was so clear and sa­tisfactory, that there was no doubt as to who was right, the magistrate could decide the case at once, without sending it to be tried in a court. During the anacrisis as well as afterwards in the regular court, the litigant parties might settle their dispute by an amicable arrangement. (De­mosth. c. Tkeocrin. p. 1323, c.Mid. p. 529 ; Aeschin. de Fals. Leg. p. 269 ; Pollux, viii. 143.) But if the plaintiff, in a public matter, dropped his accu­sation, he became liable to a fine of 1000 drach­mae, and incurred partial atimia ; in later times, however, this punishment was not always inflicted, and in civil cases the plaintiff only lost the sum of money which he had deposited. When the parties did not come to an understanding during the anacrisis, all the various kinds of evidence brought forward were put into a vessel called eXiVos, which was sealed and entrusted to some officer to be kept until it was wanted on the day of trial. (Demosth. c. Olymp. p. 1173 ; Schol. ad AristopJt. Vesp. 1427.) The period between the conclusion of the preliminary investigation and until the matter was brought before a court, was con­sidered to belong to the anacrisis, and that period