Publisher's Synopsis
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1892 edition. Excerpt: ... APPENDIX In order to obtain a definite picture of Athenian institu tions from the statements contained in this treatise, Aristotelian at least in its brevity, the student should bring to its perusal some independent knowledge of legal procedure at Athens. The supplementary information that he requires is perhaps sufficiently supplied in the following sketch. It is derived from the great work on Attic procedure by Meier, Schoemann, and Lipsius; whose learned conclusions are remarkably confirmed on all major matters by the newly-found treatise, while they are corrected or completed in some minor details. In the first place four stages in an Athenian action-atlaw whether civil (8007) or criminal (ypcaprj), are to be carefully distinguished: (1) n-poo-KXi/cris, (2) fjt-is, (3) avaKpuris, (4) elaayayyrj. (1) Prosklesis was the summons or citation of the defendant or accused by the plaintiff or accuser to appear on a given day before the magistrate who had jurisdiction in a given case {ivpo(TKaeia6at npos Tov ap DEGREESovTa). The summons was made by the plaintiff in person, accompanied by witnesses (icX DEGREESper or xXi/roper) usually two in number. Their presence was necessary in order to enable the magistrate to accept the plaint in the absence of the defendant, if he contumaciously disobeyed the summons. Without this condition, any judgment obtained by default (in contumaciam) could be annulled on proof of the absence of summons K The day on which the defendant was required to appear before the magistrate seems in some cases to have been fixed by the law. We know from Aristophanes that appearance to summons in actions of debt was on the last day of the month. Some suits could only be instituted in certain periods of the year: for instance
