Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 2.djvu/540

482 AKEOPAGUS Within the boundary of the court stood also an altar to Athene Areia, believed to have been dedicated by Orestes, and blocks of marble (amoves), on which were inscribed the laws denning the powers of the judges. On another part of the hill stood one of the most revered of Athenian sanctuaries, that of the Erinnyes, containing statues of these three goddesses, but not in the hideous aspect in which they were usually conceived, and also statues of those other deities connected with the lower world, Pluto, Hermes, and Ge. Within the boundary of this temple was the tomb of (Edipus, and very close to the boundary, if not ^dthin it, was the heroon or sanctuary of Hesychus, the founder of the priestly line in whose hands were the rites of the Erinnyes. Near the temple was the KvXuveiov, a memorial of the pollution of the spot caused by the treach erous slaughter of those who, having failed in the con spiracy of Cylon, had taken refuge there as suppliants (Herod., v. 71 ; Thucyd., i. 126). Towards the north-east foot of the hill was a temple of Ares containing statues of that god, of Enyo, Aphrodite, and Athene, while outside were statues of Hercules, Apollo, Pindar, and a poet named Caladas. On the north-east side there is a chasm in the rocks with, a spring of dark water, which may have been associated with the worship of the Erinnyes. The court and council of the Areopagus (17 (3ovXr) -fj e Apei ou Trdyov or f) avo> /SouA-^), with a legendary history which distinctly pointed to it as an institution of primitive origin and intrusted with functions of the first importance, was yet in regard to the period of its history before Solon (594 B.C.) so little known that most people in later times had come to believe it to have been created by him (Plutarch, Solon, 19). As proof that the court had not existed before the time of Solon, it was urged that in the legislation of Draco (620 B.C.) there is no mention of the Areopagus, he having referred all such, cases as in later times came within the powers of that court to a class of judges called the Ephetae. But there is no reason why " Ephetae " may not have been previous to Draco the title applied to the judges of the court of Areopagus, instead of " Areopagites," just as it was the title borne even after Solon by the judges of the other four Athenian courts which tried cases of bloodshed, unless we accept the statement of Pollux (viii. 18) that the appointment of the Ephetae to all these courts, including the Areopagus, was the work of Draco. For then, these courts having admittedly been in existence before his time, there is no help but to assume that the judges had previously borne other titles, and that in the case of the Areopagus the title used could only have been Areopagites. But it is quite within fair criticism to throw aside this statement of Pollux, as has been done by the most recent writer on this subject (Philippi, Rheinisches Museum, 1874, p. 12), and to assume, with K. O. Muller, that the Ephetse had acted from time immemorial as judges in all the five courts. There would remain for the fame of Draco the organisation of the courts, and possibly the limitation of the number of Ephetae to 51. We must then conceive Solon as having found the Ephetas acting as judges in the Areopagus and in the other four courts. He set himself to alter the constitution of the Areopagus by adding to the Ephetae already in office there the nine Athenian archons on their retiring from public duties, and provided that they had rendered a satisfactory account of their administration. It is probable that from this new source alone a sufficient number of judges was supplied, and that, therefore, the original Ephetse were allowed to die out, though in that case the number of Areopagites could scarcely have been a fixed one (given at 51 by the scholiast to the Enmenides, v. 743), considering the liability of an archon to be rejected. The new judges retained their office for life subject to dismissal only by their own body. For the most part they were advanced in year?, and necessarily always men of integrity and experience, qualifications which were demanded in the highest degree from a court which, instead of administering strictly defined laws, had to base its verdicts on a careful investigation of the life and circumstances of parties arraigned before it. Its decisions were quoted as models of justice. Its com petency was limited to cases of wilful murder (</>ovos IKOVO-IOS or e* Trpovotas), bodily injury with intent to kill (rpavp-a IK Trpovotas), incendiarism (TrvpKoiia), and poisoning ((f>dpiJ.a.Ka, lav rts aTroKTeivrj Sous). Other degrees of homi cide were referred, according to their nature, to the other four Athenian courts, viz., accidental homicide (<ovo? aKcwcrios) to the Palladium, justifiable homicide (<oi/o9 SiKatos) to the Delphinium ; at the Prytaneum was Leard the formal indictment of inanimate objects, such as wood or stone, which by falling had caused the loss of life ; while before the court of Phreathys at the Piraeus appeared those who having been banished for accidental homicide had during their banishment committed wilful murder. There were, however, cases of a complicated nature in regard to which the records are far from explicit as to the courts to which they were referred. Of this kind was a case in which the actual perpetrator (xp Ip yatra/te os) was found to have been only a tool in the hands of a third person. It was with the latter that the prosecution had principally to deal, and against him was issued a charge of /JovAevcris, or premeditation of murder. Obviously, such a person was equally guilty whether his victim died or not (Harpocration, s.v. /JouAevcreojs), and therefore equally within the jurisdiction of one and the same court. Still it has been usual to follow Schb mann (Grieck. Alterthiimer, i. p. 449) in drawing this distinction, that when death ensued the case went before the Areopagus, and before the Palladium when the victim survived. But this distinction has been made for the sake of admitting both authorities to be correct, when, on the one hand, Isasus and Aristotle (as quoted by Harpocration) refer fiovXevo-is to the Palladium, while Dinarchus (see Harpocration) on the other hand refers it to the Areopagus. It would be better to dismiss the authority of Dinarchus altogether, the more so since in a speech of Antiphon, admittedly in a case of fiovXeva-is (Choreutae), a form of address is employed, <3 av8/>es(once, wavSpes StKao-rat), which would not have been proper for the Areopagus, where the form was <J5 fiovXri (Philippi, Der Areopag, p. 32). The punishments inflicted by the Areopagus were (1.) For wilful murder, death, the execution of which was witnessed by the accuser. It is probable that confiscation of the criminal s property was included in the sentence, but this point is obscure. His property was certainly confiscated when it happened that he escaped before sentence was pronounced. (2.) For injury with intent (rpav/xa IK Trpovoias) the sentence was confiscation of property and banishment, but not for life. If the victim of either of these crimes was a /u.enxKos, or alien, the punishment, it has been supposed, was less severe, but of this there is no real evidence. The proceedings, in cases that came before the Areopagus, began, as did all 8<Wi </>OI/IKCH, with a charge (ypa<j>r/) made before the archon king sitting in his chambers in the agora. It was his business to take down the charge and to make such a preliminary inquiry into the facts as would guide him in sending the case for trial. For this purpose he appointed three separate occasions in three successive months, but whether he was contented to search into the facts alleged by the accuser, or whether he examined also the accused, is a point on which there is no evidence. It is only known in general terms that the inquiry was conducted with great care, and, it is not improbable, in presence of members of the Areopagus, who would thus

obtain a mastery of the evidence before the trial took place.