together with the indictment he had delivered in before, was taken into consideration, and then the circumstances on both sides being duly weighed, the decretory sentence was given.

Sometimes the judges limited the punishment in criminal, as well as in civil cases, where the law was silent. This occurred in the case of Socrates, “who,”, to use the words of Cicero, " was not only condemned by the first sentence of the judges, which determined whether the criminal should be condemned or acquitted, but by that also which the laws obliged them to pronounce afterwards." For at Athens when the crime was not capital, the judges were impowered to value the offence. The question being put to Socrates as to what punishment he thought his offence merited, replied, that he had merited very great honours and rewards, and to have a daily maintenance in the Prytanium, which the Grecians accounted one of the highest honours." By which answer the judges were incensed to such a degree, that they condemned that most innocent man to death.

The most ancient way of giving sentence, was by black and white sea-shells, or with pebbles.

"Black and white stones were used in ages past,
These to acquit the pris'ner, those to cast.

After this pellets of brass were used, and to these black and white beans succeeded. The manner of voting by these has been described before. When the voting appeared to be finished, the crier made proclamation in this manner:

"If there be any that has not given his voice, let him now arise and give it."

When the number of black beans exceeded that of the white the prisoner was declared guilty; but such was the lenity of the Athenian laws, that if the number. of the white beans only equalled that of the black he was pronounced innocent. This rule seems to have

been constantly adhered to in Athens. Euripides, not to speak of many others, has mentioned this custom in several places: thus

"Courage Orestes, if the lots hit right,

If the black pebbles don't exceed the white,
You're safe; and since it awful Phœbus was
The Parricide advis'd, your tottering cause
He'll on himself transfer; and hence shall be
The law transmitted to posterity,

That lots, if equal, shall the pris'ner free."

And again to the same purpose in another tragedy:

"Since you with equal suffrages I freed,
When justice ample vengeance had decreed,
And once before, when we debating sat

At Areopagus, on your dubious fate,

And there the dooming sentence must have pass'd,
Had I not you, with equal lots released:
On this account shall after ages save,
Such criminals, as equal voices have."

All the while that any cause remained undetermined, it was exposed to public view, being engraved on a tablet, together with the name of the person accused, and hung up at the statue of the heroes, the most public situation in the whole city. This appears to have been done with the design that all persons who could give any information to the court, having sufficient notice of the trial, should come and present themselves.

If the convicted person was guilty of a capital crime, he was delivered into the hands of the proper officers to receive the punishment assigned him, but if a pecuniary fine was laid upon him, they then took care to enforce the payment, or if his estate were unequal to the claim he was then consigned to perpetual imprisonment. If, on the contrary, the plaintiff had accused his adversary unjustly, and produced false witness against him; he was in some places obliged to undergo the punishment due by law to the offence of which he had unjustly charged the innocent person; but at Athens this offence was only visited with a fine, and both the villain that

had forsworn himself, and he that suborned him, were both prosecuted, and punished to the utmost extent of the law.

When the trials were over the judges went to Lycus's temple, where they delivered in their staves, or sceptres, and received their remuneration from certain officers, whose place it was to attend to that business. At first the pay was only one obolus, afterwards it was increased to two, then to three, and at length to a drachm, which was six oboli; and though these rewards may appear trifling and inconsiderable, yet the troublesome temper of the Athenians, and the scrupulous exaction of every petty duty, or privilege, occasioned so many law-suits, that the frequent payment of these small sums, by degrees so exhausted the exchequer, that they became a burden to the commonwealth. This litigious disposition was frequently ridiculed by Aristophanes, and very justly, for it had arrived at that pitch, that the streets of Athens were pestered with a set of wretches who made it their business to collect materials for involving even persons of credit and reputation in law-suits; these scoundrels were called sycophants, being a name derived from those who watched for every opportunity of lodging informations against those who exported figs, a practice that was forbidden by the law. For amongst the ancient Athenians, when the use of that fruit was first found out, or in the time of a dearth, when all sorts of provisions were exceedingly scarce, it was enacted, that no figs should be exported out of Attica; and this law not being actually repealed, when a plentiful harvest had rendered it unnecessary, remained still in force, and many ill-disposed idle persons availed themselves of this opportunity of informing against those who were found transgressing the letter of it: from these people the name of sycophants was given to all busy and malicious informers.

The Tesserachonti

For adjusting differences relating to small sums, not exceeding ten drachms, forty men were appointed, who

took a circuit round the several boroughs, for the purpose of hearing and determining such causes; Demosthenes informs us that causes of assault and battery were referred to them. At their first institution they were only thirty in number, as Pollux informs us; but Hesychus says that the Triachonta, or thirty magistrates, were those whose business it was to amerce the people for absenting themselves from the public assemblies. For the purpose of composing differences without having recourse to legal process. Arbitrators were appointed by the state, or sanctioned by it. These were of two kinds. The first consisted of forty men in each tribe, above the age of fifty: these were selected by lots, and were to determine controversies about money in their own tribe when the sum was above ten drachms. Their sentence was not final, so that if either of the contending parties thought himself injured by it, he might appeal to a superior court. At their first institution, all causes whatsoever that exceeded ten drachms, were heard by them before they could be received into other courts. They passed sentence without being under the obligation of an oath, but in other things proceeded exactly as the other judges: they received a drachm of the plaintiff, and another of the defendant, when they administered the oath to them. In case the parties did not appear at the time and place appointed, they remained in waiting till the evening, and then if only one were present they gave their decision in favour of him.

Their office continued a whole year, at the end of which they gave up their accounts; and if it was proved that they refused to give judgment, or had been corrupted, they were punished with infamy: they had. officers under them whose business it was to receive the complaints that properly belonged to their court, and enter them. The second class of arbitrators consisted of such as two parties made mutual choice of, to determine any controversy betwixt them; these the law allowed any man to request, but obliged him to abide by their decision without any farther appeal: these arbitra-

tors therefore, as a greater obligation to justice, took an oath that they would give sentence without partiality.

The Public Judgments, Actions, &c.

Whatever causes of judicial interference arose out of the pride, the ambition, the avarice, and the various wayward passions of human nature, in other countries, must doubtless have existed among the Athenians, it is therefore unnecessary to enter into a minute detail of that which is but too common in every country, and has been the sad fruit of human depravity in every age of the world.

Some few remarks on this subject will however be needful, particularly with reference to certain circumstances of a peculiarly local or national complexion. The Athenian judgments were of two sorts, Public and Private: the former had regard to crimes committed against the state: the latter comprehended all controversies that occurred between private persons. Nor did they differ in matter only, but in manner likewise, more particularly in this, that in private actions no man could prosecute the offender but the party injured, or some of his near relations: in a public suit, the laws encouraged all the citizens to revenge the public wrong by bringing the criminal to condign punishment.

Among the crimes obnoxious to existing laws of Athens were, false entries made in the public debt book by the

treasurers.

Celibacy, which was punished with a fine.

Refusing to serve in the wars: this was punished with infamy.

Loosing a shield was also attended with infamy.

Protection of a murderer: the law provided that the relations of the deceased might seize three men, in the city, or in the house to which the malefactor had fled, and

7