secutor, who originally brought forward the impeachment, several public advocates, generally not less than ten, to assist him in enforcing the charge. These were called Synegori, and received each a drachma of the public money for their services; but the office was not a permanent one, and they were selected as different occasions arose. Thus, when Cimon was accused of having corruptly for a bribe, abandoned the invasion of Macedon, the conquest of which was supposed to be within his grasp, Pericles, a most formidable accuser, was appointed by the people to speak for the prosecution. But the party who brought forward the charge did so at his peril, for if he failed in obtaining the suffrages of a fifth part of the judges for a conviction, he was fined a thousand drachmas, and in old times is said to have been punished still more severely. A remarkable difference between the mode of conducting trials at Athens, and in England at the present day, consists in the degree of strictness required in sup porting an accusation by proof. Amongst the Athenians we find the most lamentable deficiency in this first principle of justice. Common report was admitted as good evi dence of guilt, and was held sufficient some times to warrant a conviction, though no specific proofs could be brought forward. Thus vEschines, in his speech against Timarchus, strongly insists upon the point that the prosecutor may proceed upon the noto riety of the facts charged against a party, and we find him constantly presuming the guilt of Timarchus, simply on the ground that everybody knew it, although he ac
knowledges his inability to bring direct evidence. Nay, he goes so far as to pro nounce a panegyric upon the power of Rumor, to which, as a mighty goddess, he says the state formerly had erected an altar; and he quotes Homer, Hesiod, and Euripides, to prove the respect due to her influence. And this too in a criminal trial, where the character of the defendant was at stake, and the question was, whether he had been guilty of certain specific offenses of the most disgraceful nature. What more dangerous method for the destruction of the innocent can be imagined than this? Although the rule in Athenian courts of justice, as in our own, was against the re ception of hearsay evidence to prove partic ular facts, we find it was frequently violated in practice; and besides this, the speakers were in the habit of supporting their asser tions, by appealing to the personal knowl edge of the jurors themselves. We can well understand how, in a small community like that of Athens, where the jury on each trial bore no inconsiderable proportion to the whole number of citizens, many of those who sat as dicasts must have been cognisant beforehand of the facts of the case; and no doubt the verdict was often given, not upon the evidence adduced in court, but on the private information which they themselves possessed. Indeed, j4ischines tells us that it was the avowed system of the court of Areopagus (by far the most virtuous as well as most august tribunal at Athens), for the judges to give their votes, not merely according to the evidence and statements before them, but acting upon their own private information and inquiries.
?**=
