graphe

GRAPHE(γραφή), in its most general acceptation, comprehends all state trials and criminal prosecutions whatever in the Attic courts (it is used in this sense but rarely in the classic writers, [Dem.] c. Steph. 2. p. 1131.9; Xenoph. Rep. Athen. 3, 2; an εἰσαγγελία κακώσεως is called γραφή, Isae. Hagn. § § 28, 31, 35, [Dem.] c. Theocr. p. 1332.32); but in its more limited sense, those only which were not distinguished as the εὔθυναι, ἔνδειξις, εἰσαγγελία, etc. by a special name and a peculiar conduct of the proceedings (cf. Dem. c. Boeot. 1. p. 998.14, γραφαὶ φάσεις ἐνδείξεις ἀπαγωγαί; Lys. c. Agorat. § 65; pro Mantith. § 12, etc.), The principal characteristic differences between public and private actions are enumerated under DIKEand the peculiar forms of public prosecutions, such as those above mentioned, are separately noticed. Of these forms, together with that of the Graphe, properly so called, it frequently happened that two or more were applicable to the same course or action (e. g. Dem. c. Mid. p. 523.28; c. Androt. p. 601.27); and the discretion of the prosecutor in selecting the most advantageous of his available remedies was attended by results of great importance to himself and to the accused. If the prosecutor's speech (κατηγορία), and the evidence adduced by him, were insufficient to establish the aggravated character of the wrong in question, as indicated by the form of action he had chosen, his ill-judged rigour might be alleged in mitigation of the punishment by the defendant in his reply (ἀπολογία), or upon the assessment of the penalty after judgment given; and if the case were one of those in which the dicasts had no power of assessing (ἀτίμητος γραφή) it might cause a total failure of justice, and even render the prosecutor liable to a fine or other punishment.

The courts before which public causes could be tried were very various; and besides the ordinary Heliastic bodies under the control of the nine archons, or the Eleven, or the logistae, or the generals, the council, and even the popular assembly of the people, occasionally became judicial bodies for that purpose, as in the case of the Dokimasiae of the archons (Dem. c. Lept. p. 484.90; cf. Pollux, 8.92), and sometimes in that of Eisangeliae (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 140 f. and p. 325). The proper court in which to bring a particular action was for the most part determined by the subject-matter of the accusation. In the trial of state offences it was in general requisite that the ostensible prosecutor should be an Athenian citizen in the full possession of his franchise (ὁ βουλόμενος Ἀθηναίων οἷς ἔξεστι); but on some particular occasions even slaves and resident aliens were invited to come forward and lay informations (μηνύειν ἀδεῶς τὸν βουλόμενον καὶ ἀστῶν καὶ ξένων καὶ δούλων, Thuc. 6.27; cf. Andoc. de Myst. § § 13, 15 ff. μήνυσις --slaves inform against their master, a resident alien, Lys. pro Call. § 5; cf. Antiph. de caed. Herod. § 34, Lys. pro sacr. olea exsc. § 16, for the rewards of the μηνυταί: if the information proved to be false, they were put to death, Andoc. de Myst. § 20). Sometimes in Eisangeliae and other special proceedings the prosecution and conduct of the cause in court was carried on by advocates chosen for the occasion (συνήγοροι, [Plut.] Vitt. X. Oratt. p. 833 E; κατήγοροι, Dinarch. c. Demosth. § 51; c. Aristog. § 6; Plut. Per. 10); but with the exception of these temporary appointments the protection of purely state interests seems to have been left to volunteer accusers.

In criminal causes the prosecution was conducted by the κύριος in behalf of the aggrieved woman or minor; his προστάτης probably gave some assistance to the resident alien in the commencement of the proceedings, though the accusation was in the name of the person aggrieved, who also made his appearance at the trial without the intervention of the patron (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 753 f.: cf. Hermes, 1887, 22. p. 223 ff.). The ἰσοτελεῖς enjoyed the same privileges as the citizens (C. I. A. ii. No. 121, 1. 26; cf. Schubert, de proxen. Att. p. 55 f.); and a complete foreigner would upon this occasion require protection from the proxenus of his country. With the exception of cases in which the Apagoge, Ephegesis, Endeixis, or Eisangelia were adopted, in which the accused had to find bail or go to prison (in certain Eisangeliae he was not allowed to be set free on bail), and of accusations at the Euthynae and Dokimasiae, when the accused was or was supposed by the law to be present, a public action against a citizen commenced like an ordinary lawsuit, with a summons to appear before the proper magistrate on a fixed day (Plat. Euthyphr. init.). The anacrisis then followed [ANACRISIS ]; but the bill of accusation was called a γραφή (this term is also used generally for bills in private actions, cf. Dem. c. Aphob. 1. p. 817.12; Lys. de Aristoph. bon. § 55; Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 232) or εἰσαγγελία or φάσις, as the case might be, rarely ἔγκλημα ([Dem.] c. Aristog. 1. p. 787.58; cf. Hyperid. pro Lycophr. col. 14) or λῆξις (Dem. c. Boeot. 1. p. 999.17) as in private actions; a public prosecution could not be referred to an arbitrator [DIAETETAE], and if it were compromised, this would render the accuser ipso jure (without the action καθυφέσεως, Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 450) liable to a fine of a thousand drachmas ([Dem.] c. Theocr. p. 1323.6). The same sum was also forfeited when the prosecutor failed to obtain the votes of a fifth of the dicasts in all cases except those brought before the archon that had reference to injury (κάκωσις) done to women and orphans, in a trial for uprooting a moria (Lys. pro sacr. olea exsc. § 37), and up to a certain time in Eisangeliae for political offences, likewise in a Probole (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 344), and probably also in such cases where κατήγοροι were chosen by the popular assembly (after an ἀπόφασις of the Areiopagitic council) to prosecute before a court (for we learn from Dinarch. c. Dem. § 54, that sometimes they did not obtain as many as one-fifth of the votes). Besides this penalty, a modified disfranchisement, as, for instance, an incapacity to bring a similar accusation, was incurred upon several occasions. Upon the conviction of the accused, if the sentence were death (on the mode of execution see Journ. of Philol. 8. p. 1 ff.) or prison, the presiding magistrate of the court delivered over the prisoner, who remained in the custody of the Scythae during the trial, to the Eleven (παραδοῦναι τοῖς ἕνδεκα). If the punishment was confiscation of property, the demarch, as a rule, made an inventory of the effects of the criminal (τὼ δὲ δημάρχω ἀποφῆναι τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῖν, i. e. of Archeptolemus of Agryle and Antiphon of Rhamnus, [Plut.] Vitt. X. Oratt. p. 834 A: cf. Harpocr. s. v. δήμαρχος: and Lex. Seguer. 304, 4, συλλογεῖς), which was read in the assembly of the people, and delivered to the poletae, that they might hold a sale of the goods, and pay in the proceeds to the public treasury. If the accused was condemned to pay a fine, the presiding magistrate had to give notice of the amount to the πράκτορες: and if the fine or any part of it was to go to a temple, the like notice was to be sent to the ταμίας of the god or goddess to whom the temple belonged ([Dem.] c. Macart. p. 1074.71; c. Aristog. 1. p. 778.28). (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 956 ff.)

(γραφή). See dike; judicial procedure.