CARAWAN, EDWIN M., "Erotesis": Interrogation in the Courts of Fourth-Century Athens , 
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 24:3 (1983:Autumn) p.209 

Erotesis: Interrogation in the Courts 
of Fourth-Century Athens 

Edwin M Carawan 

T Dill allTtBtKOtll E1TalluYKE<; Eillm a1TOKptlluCT(Jm aAA-rJAOt<; TO EPW­
n,V/-tElIOll (Dem. 46.10): EPWTTJCTt<;, interrogation of the adver­
sary as Aristotle describes in the Rhetoric (l419a), has been 

regarded by authorities on Athenian law and judicial oratory as mere­
ly 'rhetorical questions' in the fourth century.1 The formalization of 
legal procedure under the restored democracy and the development 
of artistic argumentation in written speeches seem to have left little 
opportunity for question-and-answer. It has been assumed that the 
speech writers who provided their clients with prepared texts of their 
arguments effectively put an end to extempore debate in the courts; 2 

and it has been concluded that the statute requiring an answer to the 
speaker's questions (Dem. 46.10) had become a dead letter of the 
law.3 Recent work on Athenian law has given us a clearer under­
standing of the legal principles in such important procedures as ypu­
qn., 1TUPUlIO/-tWlI, 1TUPUYPUcP-rJ, EWUYYEAta, a1TuywY-rJ, and €lIBE"gt<;, 
but it still remains unclear in some cases how these proceedings were 
initiated and what questions were left for the court to decide.4 The 

1 This is the view of Ernst Leisi, Der Zeuge im attischen Recht (Frauenfeld 1907) 
40-41; J. H. Lipsius, Das atfische Recht und Rechtsve((ahren III (Leipzig 1915) 876-77; 
and among commentators on the orators, W. Wyse, The Speeches of Isaeus (Cambridge 
1904) 682. This view has been followed without question in later studies, with the 
result that D. M. MacDowell in his recent handbook, The Law in Classical Athens 
(London 1978) 241-50, discusses erotesis only in regard to the anakrisis. 

2 R. J. Bonner and G. Smith, The Administration of Justice from Homer to Aristotle 
(Chicago 1930-1938) II 122, assume that eroteseis were abandoned in the era of logo­
graphic speeches. Writers on the Attic orators generally traced the development of 
artistic rhetoric from the end of the magisterial hearing and the growth of the demo­
cratic judiciary: c/ G. Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton 1963) 42. 

:1 C'.r PI. Ap. 25D, Kat yap 0 VO~~ K€A€VeL a7TOKptV€uBm. On the authenticity of the 
law in Oem. 46.10 see n.7 infra. Kurt Latte, Heiliges Recht (Ttibingen 1920) 16 n.27, 
regards the requirement to answer the adversary's questions as an obsolete relic of 
archaic procedure: the orators of the fourth century no longer understood the principle 
of these interrogatories to decide the issue, but continued to follow the form for "the­
atrical effect." 

4 The principle of the sovereignty of the people's court has been the focus of studies 
on the ypatPil 7TapaVOJ.LWv, H. J. Wolff, "Normencontrolle" und Gesetzesbegri./f in der 
attischen Demokratie (SitzHeidelberg 1970); M. H. Hansen, The Sovereignty of the Peo-

209 



CARAWAN, EDWIN M., "Erotesis": Interrogation in the Courts of Fourth-Century Athens , 
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 24:3 (1983:Autumn) p.209 

210 EROTESIS: INTERROGATION IN THE COURTS 

eroteseis in the extant speeches, however, often indicate what posi­
tions the adversaries had taken at the a"aKpf,(n.~ and what were the 
central issues at the trial. Those who have regarded erotesis as rhetor­
ical ornamentation have ignored a key to the procedure and the argu­
ment. 

Interrogation and debate were essential features of the earliest 
forms of legal process in Hellas: on the Homeric 'Shield of Achilles' 
(II. 18.506) both sides argue the case in turn, al-Wt/3..,.,a,s aE aiKa~o,,~5 
the trial of Orestes in Aeschylus' Eumenides (585-610) suggests that 
erotesis was regarded as an ancient procedure~ and in Aristophanes' 
Acharnians (687) the chorus protest against current abuses of this 
tactic by young prosecutors who harass their elders in cross-examina­
tion. The chapters on erotesis in Aristotle's RhetoriC and in the Rhet­
oric attributed to Anaximenes (1444b) suggest that interrogatories 
were still an effective tactic in judicial debate in the later fourth cen­
tury. The democratization of legal process had led to greater reliance 
on prepared speeches, written out verbatim or in part, and although 
written speeches were meant to imitate extempore speech, the au­
thors have left us few indications of the extempore techniques that 
were actually used.6 There are, however, more than a dozen exam­
ples of erotesis in the extant speeches, and these passages in them­
selves are evidence that the most decisive issues were debated at the 
trial. In chronological sequence these passages fall into three groups 
that seem to coincide with changes in procedure: 403 to 37817, from 

pIe's Court (Odense 1974); on 7Tapaypac/n1, H. J. Wolff, Die atfische Paragraphe (Wei­
mar 1966), S. Isager and M. H. Hansen, Aspects of Athenian Society in the Fourth Century 
B.C. (Odense 1975) 123ff; on fwa'Y'YfALa and am></xlow, M. H. Hansen, Eisangelia 
(Odense 1975); Hansen regards fwa'Y'YfALa and E"fj£~,<; as exceptions to the principle 
of sovereignty of the courts (Apagoge, Endeixis and Ephegesis [Odense 1976]); but see 
the discussion infra. . 

5 On the confrontation of the antidikoi and the origins of legal process in Hellas, see 
Bonner and Smith (supra n.2) II 26-62; H. J. Wolff, "The Origin of Judicial Litigation 
among the Greeks," Traditio 4 (I946) 31-87; and A. R. W. Harrison, The Law of 
Athens II (Oxford 1971) 69-76. 

6 Studies of extempore discourse, H. L. Brown, Extemporary Speech in Antiquity (Chi­
cago 1914), and A. P. Dorjahn, TAPA 78 (947) 69-76, CP 45 (1950) 9-16, and 
TAPA 83 (1952) 164-71, have given no account of erotesis. The evidence on the 
publication of rhetorical texts in antiquity leaves many questions unanswered, but it is 
essentially agreed that in logographic speeches the received text represents the pre­
pared text without significant revision. The logographer may have advised his client on 
extempore techniques, but it is unlikely that the client emended his prepared text after 
the outcome to record the exact wording of such extempore tactics as erotesis: see M. 
Lavency, Aspects de la logographie judicia ire attique (Louvain 1964) 124-52, 183-91; K. 
J. Dover, Lysias and the Corpus Lysiacum (Berkeley 1968) 148-74. Against Dover's 
suggestion that the client in some cases made revisions (and thus confused the author­
ship), see S. Usher, "Lysias and His Clients," GRBS 17 (976) 31-40. 



CARAWAN, EDWIN M., "Erotesis": Interrogation in the Courts of Fourth-Century Athens , 
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 24:3 (1983:Autumn) p.209 

EDWIN M. CARAWAN 211 

the restoration through a period of reform when written depositions 
replaced oral evidence; 376 to the late 340's, during which the 7Ta­
paypacp-r, became an important procedure; late 340's to 324, in which 
the few extant examples are in speeches concerning the prosecution 
of rhetores. In each of the examples it will be necessary to determine 
the sequence of the argument from the preliminaries to the trial. 

The law requiring answers in cross-examination7 applied at the 
anakrisis as well as at the trial: at the anakrisis questions were di­
rected by the archon to each of the antidikoi, and by each of the 
antidikoi to his adversary; 8 the archon had the responsibility to define 
the questions at issue and determine the legality of the charges, and 
the archon had the authority to demand that both parties "answer 
according to the law":9 Isaeus 6.12, on yap ai avaKptnEL') .f1CTav ... 
epwTw/-UvOL vcp' ~J,UVv ... OVK Elxov a7To8E~m ... Kat TOV apXOVTO') 
KEAEVOVTO') a7ToKpivaa-(Jm KaTa TOV VOJ.LOv ... It is generally agreed 
that the archon's chief concern at the anakrisis was to determine 
whether the action was or was not admissible (eisagogimos),lO but it is 

7 In the second speech Against Stephanus in the Demosthenic corpus we are told that 
the law requiring that the adversaries answer applied in all graphai, dikai, and euthynai 
(46.9). The same statute carries the restriction against testimony in one's own behalf 
(10): TOtV aVTtOtKOtv E7Tava'}'Ke~ eivm a7roKpivau(Jat aAAT,AOt~ TO epWTWI-UVOV, JUlP­
roPE!.V o~ 1.).:1/. We have every reason to believe that the law is genuine and the statute 
was well known to the dikastai. The speaker's purpose in citing the law is not to justify 
cross-examination-which seems to need no argument-but to show the illegality of 
Stephanus' testimony: he argues that Stephanus' martyria in the earlier action against 
Phormio was 'hearsay', on the word of Phormio himself, and thus amounts to tes­
timony by the defendant in his own behalf. Since the clause concerning cross-examina­
tion is cited incidentally and is not relevant to the speaker's argument, we have all the 
more reason to accept its authenticity. 

8 The procedure for questioning by the archon or the diaites at the preliminary hear­
ing is suggested by Isae. 5.32, avaKpivavTE~ 8E r,piX~ 7rOAAaKt~ Kat 7TV(J0I-UVOt ra 7rpaX.­
(J~VTa oi 8wtTI]Tai, and in Oem. 48.31, 0 apx.wv aV~KptvE 7rCxaw r,,.uv TO!." al.J.4xu­
/3-r/TOVU"L Kat avaKpiva" EiuT,,},a,},EV eis TO 8tKaurr,pwv. Questioning by the antidikoi is 
evident in lsae. 6.12 (quoted infra). 

9 For the magistrate's authority to clarify the wording of the charges and of the 
counterpleas see lsae. 10.2, and cf the discussion in Harrison (supra n.5) 95-96. In 
cases other than inheritance disputes we have little evidence for the magistrate's ques­
tions. Bonner and Smith (supra n.2) I 289 suggest the following line of inquiry: "Was 
the plaintiff eligible to appear in court? Was the defendant qualified to answer the 
charge or the claim? If the defendant failed to appear, had he been duly summoned? 
Were the documents-plaint or indictment-properly drawn? Was the matter at issue 
actionable? Was the proper form of action chosen? Did the magistrate have jurisdiction 
in the case?" q: Leisi (supra n.1) 83-84. 

10 In Athens under the radical democracy, anakriseis before the archons were the 
only vestige of the pre-Solonian magisterial trial. Such hearings had parallels in La­
conian and Roman procedures. On Spartan anakriseis see Thuc. 1.95, 132; Arist. Rh. 
1419a31-36; Plut. Mar. 217A-B; (f J. Keaney, "Theophrastus on Judicial Procedure," 
TAPA 104 (1974) 179-94. At Rome preliminary hearings before the praetor in iure 
corresponded to anakriseis at Athens, and similarly represent a survival of the archaic 



CARAWAN, EDWIN M., "Erotesis": Interrogation in the Courts of Fourth-Century Athens , 
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 24:3 (1983:Autumn) p.209 

212 EROTESIS: INTERROGATION IN THE COURTS 

often assumed that all important legal issues, the evidence, and the 
facts of the case were decided at the anakrisis and that there were no 
new questions to answer at the trial; 11 the speeches at the trial were 
thus exercises in argumentation. The courts of the people, however, 
had become the supreme authority in the democratic judiciary.12 In 
most cases the pre-judicial authorities who held the preliminary hear­
ings-the archons, the thesmothetai, the Eleven, and the council­
were reluctant to condemn or acquit on their own authority, 13 and 
thus in many cases the most convincing arguments may have been 
held in reserve for the trial. 

It has been argued, however, that the procedure in 'denunciation' 
and 'summary arrest', endeixis and apagoge, was an exception to the 
principle of the sovereignty of the court: M. H. Hansen has suggested 
that the magistrates in charge-the Eleven, the thesmothetai, or the 
council, annual officials appointed by lot with no special qualifica­
tions-routinely disposed of such cases by execution without trial 
(TO aKpLTOll a7ToKTE'illaL).14 This admittedly "pessimistic account" has 
provoked a great deal of discussion, but no one has disputed the 

judicial power of the rulers. The purpose of the magistrate's questioning is "to define 
the issue juristically in such a way that a straight condemnation or acquittal of the 
defendant could be pronounced, in Rome by the iudex, in Athens by the dicastery" 
(Harrison [supra n.5] 95). 

II F. Uimmli, Das atfische Prozessve,/ahren (Paderborn 1938) 84, suggested that the 
requirement to answer allowed for investigation of the adversary's line of argument, 
and this view is often accepted. 

12 Cf E. Ruschenbusch, "4LKUfTT..qpWV 7TaVTWV ,wpwv," Historia 6 (I 957) 257-74~ 
Wolff, "Normencontrolle" (supra n.4); Hansen, Sovereignty, and his "Initiative and 
Decision: The Separation of Powers in Fourth-Century Athens," GRBS 22 (I981) 
338-57. 

13 Cf Harrison (supra n.5) 91, "We can only suppose that the threat of proceedings 
by way of euthyna or epikheirotonia had the effect of making magistrates lean heavily in 
the direction of allowing suit." Hereafter it will be convenient to use the general term 
'archon' of all those who administer an arche and thus conduct preliminary hearings 
within that jurisdiction, as opposed to the specific offices of e.g. the Eleven, the thesmo­
thetai, or the archon eponymos~ for the classification of the boule as an arche, see P. J. 
Rhodes, The Athenian Boule (Oxford 1972) 13-14, and Hansen (supra n.12) 347-60. 

14 Hansen, Apagoge 119 et passim, and (supra n.12) 354. His argument on this point 
may be summarized as follOWS. (1) Endeixis and apagoge are two stages of the same 
procedure~ the offender can be arrested in flagrante delicto (apagoge), or the prosecutor 
can make his denunciation (endeixis) before the archon, who in effect gives warrant for 
the arrest. But (2) even in endeixis it is the prosecutor who makes the arrest (not the 
Eleven or the thesmofhefai as had been assumed). (3) In the endeixis of afimoi the 
prosecutor may leave the accused at liberty (as in the proceedings against Andocides), 
but in the arrest of felons or exiles for execution the prosecutor is safeguarded from 
dike phonou if he has made the denunciation to the archon. (4) Although a hearing 
before the people was guaranteed in the endeixis of afimoi, apagoge and endeixis of 
kakourgoi and pheugontes often led to execution without trial. 



CARAWAN, EDWIN M., "Erotesis": Interrogation in the Courts of Fourth-Century Athens , 
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 24:3 (1983:Autumn) p.209 

EDWIN M. CARAWAN 213 

claim that ""penalties were often inflicted without any hearing of the 
case."15 If it is true, however, that these officials often exercised the 
power of life and death in apagoge and related procedures, we need 
to ask how the questions at issue were answered and the verdict 
determined at the anakrisis. If in similar cases erotesis and extempore 
debate were used to decide such questions at the trial, it is unlikely 
that the archons would have been willing to condemn the accused on 
their own authority. 

The only clear case of apagoge leading to execution without trial 
occurred in the first year of the restoration: an unknown democrat 
was arrested by Archinos and brought before the boule for violation 
of the amnesty, and in that hearing he was condemned to death.I6 
Our only source for this incident is Aristotle's Ath. Pol. 40.2, so that 
we have no indication what procedures were followed to decide the 
case in the anakrisis. We may assume that the accused was forced to 
confess to the facts of the case, that he had acted against members 
the other party, but it is unclear whether it was necessary for him to 
of confess to the crime, that he had acted in violation of the amnesty. 
Aristotle tells us only that the verdict was a very effective deterrent: 
• (J I \.~ \ I ., • I W k 

a1TO aVOVTO~ yap OVuEL~ 7TW7TOTE vaTEpov Ef.LVTJaLKaKTJCIEV. e now 
of only two motions for summary execution in the latter half of the 
fourth century, both of which were dismissed as unconstitutionalP In 
the years immediately following Archinos' apagoge there were three 
cases of endeixis or apagoge for which the extant speeches indicate 
erotesis at the trial; these passages together with the eroteseis from 
similar cases of the same period suggest that the council and other 
pre-judicial authorities were reluctant to condemn without trial, if 

15 Hansen, Apagoge 118-19. D. M. MacDowell, CR 92 (978) 175, accepts Hansen's 
argument on the prosecutor's arrest in endeixis, but disputes his interpretation of the 
term E1T' aVToqxV(XtJ with regard to the prosecution of kakourgoi; G. Lalonde, AlP 99 
(978) 132-33, finds the argument that the prosecutor must make the arrest in endeixis 
"plausible at best"; M. Gagarin, "The Prosecution of Homicide in Athens," GRBS 20 
(1979) 318-22, argues against Hansen's explanation of apagoge in the prosecution of 
homicide, with regard to the case against Agoratus (Lys. 13); see Hansen's answer in 
GRBS 22 (198 I), esp. 28-29; and the discussion of Lys. 13 infra (217f). 

16 The only other reference is found in Oem. 23.31: oi OEU"f..WO£Tat TO~ E1Tt ¢O~ 
cPEtryollTa<; KVPWL Oall(XTq> ~'Y)~U"at, Kat TOil EK T7I<; EKKA'Y)U"I.a<; 1TEPVU"t1l 1TllIITE<; EWPa.O' 
1.m' EKELIIWII (maxOEIlTa. Cl Hansen, Apagoge 134. The incident is mentioned among 
many procedures against which Charedemus would have had immunity under Aristoc­
rates' proposal; if such summary executions were commonplace we should expect the 
speaker to attach greater importance to this procedure. 

17 Meidias proposed arrest and execution of Aristarchus (348), but the proposal was 
rejected by the council; Hansen argues ex silentio (Apagoge 135-36) that the proposal is 
not unconstitutional. The proposal of Pythangelos for the execution of Hieroc\es 
(332/1) is discussed infra 219. 



CARAWAN, EDWIN M., "Erotesis": Interrogation in the Courts of Fourth-Century Athens , 
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 24:3 (1983:Autumn) p.209 

214 EROTESIS: INTERROGATION IN THE COURTS 

indeed they retained the power to do so. In each case the erotesis 
reveals what questions had been answered at the anakrisis and what 
questions were left for the court to decide. 

The earliest erotesis in the extant speeches is found in Lysias 12 
Against Eratosthenes, from the same year as Archinos' apagoge. By 
provisions of the amnesty the former oligarch came to trial in a 
special accounting before a jury of qualified Athenians after a prelim­
inary hearing before a committee of the council (Iogista;).18 In prin­
ciple the problem of pre-judicial authority is the same as in Archinos' 
apagoge; the facts of the case are not in question, but in this case the 
nature of the proceedings may have guaranteed a hearing before the 
special court. In the received text of Lysias 12, Eratosthenes' answers 
are recorded verbatim, and this is a probable sign that the issues had 
been clearly defined at the preliminary hearing. Although the extant 
speech may represent a version revised for publication, it is unlikely 
that Lysias would have misrepresented the actual proceedings.19 

aJla!3TJfJL OVJI /-WI, Kat a7TOKpLJlaL, 0 'TL aJl €IE epWTW. am7')'a')'E~ 
nOAE~pXOJl Ti oil; Ta lnrO TOW apXOJlTWJI 7TPO€ITaXfJEJlTa SES~ 
" "'H fJ ~" ~ Rr. \ ,,,. \ ' " , E7TOWVJI. €I a u EV rep pvV",EVTTJP'4', OTE Ot ",O,),Ot eytYVOJlTO 7TEpt 

';'~JI; "'HJI. nOTEpOJl UVJlTJ')'OPEVE~ TOL~ KEAEVoV€ItJl a7TOKTELJlat Ti 
aJlTEAE')'E~; 'AJlTEAE,),OJl, iJla p,.y, a7TofJaVTJTE. 'H')'ovp,EJlo~ ';'p,a~ aSt-

, .. ~ , " " ~ E"" '" , , , Ka 7TaUxEtJl TJ utKac.a; .t1..utKa. tT, W UXETAtWTaTE 7TaVTWV, av-
~ \ d' \.1. Q_ ~'d' , , 

TEI\EyE~ p,EV tva UW(TEc.a~, UVVEI\,U.p,f-A4VE~ uE tva a7TOKTEtvn~; Kat 

OTE IJlv TO 7TATjfJO~ ~V V~V ,roPWJI TTj~ €IWTTJpia~ TTj~ TJp,ETEpa~, 
aV'TLAEYELJI qn.,~ To'i~ f30VAOp,EVOt~ ';'p,a~ a7TOAEUat, E7TEtS.y, Se E7TL 

uoi p.Ov~ EYEVETO Kai moo·at nOAE~pXOV Kai p,";', Ei~ TO SEUp,w­
~PWV am1')'a')'E~; (12.24-26) 

Eratosthenes has admitted the fact of the crime and the 'wrong' 
but denies the responsibility. Lysias must have been sure of the plea 
for he does not call witnesses of the events in question, but he later 
calls witnesses to verify Eratosthenes' rank in the oligarchic regime in 
order to refute his plea of intimidation. The preliminary hearing had 
established the basis for the cross-examination at the trial and en­
abled Lysias to anticipate his adversary's response. 

18 The legal status of Lysias, a privileged alien (isoteles) , as prosecutor at the ac­
counting of Eratosthenes has been the subject of some controversy. Friedrich Blass, 
Die attische Beredsamkeit I (Leipzig 1887) 540-42, suggested that under a special pro­
cedure for indictments against the Thirty, privileged aliens had the right to bring 
charges. Wilamowitz, Aristoteles und Athen II (Berlin 1893) 218-21, with reference to 
Ath.Pol. 39.6, followed the same line of reasoning. Dover (supra n.6) 8 n.9 accepts this 
explanation. The story of a special grant of citizenship (Plut. Mor. 835) is seldom given 
consideration. 

19 See Lavency (supra n.6) and Dover (supra n.6). 



CARAWAN, EDWIN M., "Erotesis": Interrogation in the Courts of Fourth-Century Athens , 
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 24:3 (1983:Autumn) p.209 

EDWIN M. CARAWAN 215 

The endeixis asebeias against Andocides late in the year 400 is an­
other instance of proceedings initiated before the boule that led to 
cross-examination at trial before the people. Once again the procedure 
is irregular, but it is a crucial piece of evidence in Hansen's analysis of 
endeixis; the sequence of events, however, tends to discredit the no­
tion that the pre-judicial authority often exercised the power of execu­
tion without trial.20 Kephisios had made every effort to convict An­
docides in the preliminaries, alleging that Andocides confessed his 
guilt in his information against those who took part in the mutilation 
of the Hermae and the profanation of the Mysteries (Lys. 6.15, 51). 
Andocides' strongest arguments rely on the amnesty of 40312 and 
Patrocleides' decree of 405 that restored civil rights to atimoi. Fully 
acquainted with the facts of the case, the council was unwilling either 
to interpret Andocides' admissions as a confession of guilt or to acquit 
him on their own authority, and Andocides was left at liberty until the 
trial. To judge from the extant speech the arguments at the anakrisis 
formed the basis of cross-examination at the trial. With reference to 
the laws rendered invalid by the amnesty, Andocides addresses Epi­
chares, 1T'OTEPOV ... ,ropwt:; <> VOi-tOt:; aBE EO"TtV 71 ov ,ropwt:;; (1.99). 
Recounting the questions that had been posed to him by the prosecu­
tion, Andocides asks his audience to recall how much like the inquisi­
tions of the Thirty his accusers' questions have been: 

When he made his charges against me it seemed just as though I 
had been arrested and put on trial by the Thirty ... Who else but 
Charic1es would have conducted the interrogation, asking, "Tell 
me, did you go to Decelea and build there a bastion against your 
own homeland? ... Did you lay waste the land or rob your own 
countrymen on land or on sea?"21 

Evidently Charicles had continued the interrogation at the trial along 
the same lines laid out at the anakrisis. This passage seems to be an 

20 The proceedings against Andocides are the clearest case of the accused at liberty 
until the trial in endeixis: the endeixis was brought by Kephisios to the thesmothetai; 
after the traditional report of the basileus to the council, the prytaneis summoned the 
antidikoi to a preliminary hearing before the council; there was some debate (And. 
l.l11-16), but Andocides was released without bail. See Hansen's discussion, Apagoge 
20-28, 128-30. 

21 l.l01: ovfieIJ at..t..o 1/ lmO TWIJ TPWKOIJTa U"VIJELt..TJJ.t~IJo<; EOO~U KpiIJEu(Jm. Ei yap 
T(>TE TJYWv!,{Of.LTjV, Ti" av f.LOV KUTT}YOpU; OVX OVTO" imTipx£v, £L f.Lf} EBi&vv apyVpwv; 
KUt yap IJVIJ. O:IJEKPLIJE 8' aIJ J.tE Ti<; at..Ao<; 1/ XUPLKAr,<;, EPWTWIJ, Ei7TE f.LOL, 6J 'AIJOOKi8TJ, 
~t..(}E<; Ei<; I1EKEt..ELUIJ, KUt E7TETEixLUU<; rfi 7TUTpifiL rfi UEUVTOV; OVK EYw"yE. Ti fiE; ETEJ.tE<; 
TI,IJ XWPUIJ, KUt EAiww 1/ KUTa y1/V 1/ KUTa (}UAUTTaV TO~ 7TOAiTa<; TOV<; UEaVTOV; Ov 
8r,Ta. Ov8' EVUV~XTJuu<; EVUIJTW: rfi 7TOAEL, ov8e uv"yKUTEUKU.pU<; Ta TEiXTJ, ov8e 
avyKuTEAvuu<; TOV Br,f.LOv, oilBe fJ0 KUTT;A(}£<; £L<; TI,V miA-LV; OilBe TOVTWV 1TUTOiTjKU 
OV8EIJ. ~OKEL<; OVIJ XULpY/UELIJ KUt OVK O:7TO(JUIJEW(JUL, We; ;TEPOL 7TOt..AOi; 



CARAWAN, EDWIN M., "Erotesis": Interrogation in the Courts of Fourth-Century Athens , 
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 24:3 (1983:Autumn) p.209 

216 EROTESIS: INTERROGATION IN THE COURTS 

elaboration of extempore debate in the published version of the 
actual proceedings, and in many other instances, in legal actions 
involving political issues and party rivalry, what appear to be rhetori­
cal questions in speeches for publication may represent eroteseis in 
the actual delivery.22 

In the graphe asebeias against Socrates, the two surviving accounts, 
of Plato, who was present at the trial, and of Xenophon, who drew on 
the account of Hermogenes, although they agree on very little else, 
confirm that Socrates made extensive use of interrogatories; and his 
handling of the procedure was in accordance with accepted practice in 
most regards. Plato's version shows Socrates adapting his own charac­
teristic method of argument, Ell TqJ eiw80n TP07TCp, to the conventions 
of the courts where the law required an answer, and for the most part 
the questioning is based on the wording of the indictment recorded at 
the anakrisis. The prosecution by graphe in a case of impiety may have 
seemed unusual; endeixis or eisangelia could have provided for the 
arrest and imprisonment of the accused as an urgent threat to the 
community; the eisangelia against Anaxagoras was the most notorious 
case of its kind.23 In the graphe, however, the defendant was sum­
moned to appear before the basileus and an anakrisis was held; after­
ward Socrates was at liberty until the trial. It appears to be an authen­
tic feature in Plato's account that Socrates' interrogation is directed to 
the wording of the charges, to refute the accusations of corruption of 
the youth (24o-26A) and impiety towards the gods of the state 
(268-27 A). Aristotle, in fact, without citing Plato's version, gives 
Socrates' interrogatory argument-that he who believes in daimonia 
must believe in the gods (27c)-as an example of the second meth­
od of erotesis, "when one premise is self-evident and it is clear that 
the opponent will grant the other" 0 419a5-12). This kind of cross­
examinaton based on the arguments put forward at the anakrisis 
seems to be typical of erotesis in the extant speeches. 

The speech of Lysias Against Agoratus (3) provides another exam­
ple of erotesis at the trial, in the same year as or soon after the suits 

22Lipsius (supra n.O 917 n.60 cites this passage along with PI. Ap. 24D-27E and 
Din. 1.83 as examples of the rhetorical elaboration of interrogatories. 

23 On the eisangelia against Anaxagoras (437/6) and the decree of Diopeithes cf. E. 
Derenne, Les Proces d'impiere (Liege 1930) 24-30; J. Mansfeld, "The Chronology of 
Anaxagoras' Athenian Period and the Date of His Trial," Mnemosyne IV.32 (1979) 
54-55 and n.53; 33 (1980) 80-84. Pericles spoke as synegoros, and his speech for the 
defense seems the most likely source for the erotesis attributed to Pericles in Arist. Rh. 
1419a2-5. Cl Diog. Laert. 2.l2, LWTLwil ,.ull yap cfrrIULil Ell rfi 8w:ooxfj TWII fjJLAOUOq,wv 
1mo. KAEWIIO<; UVTOII aue/3ew<; Kpt8ijvut ... a7TOAO"fT/UUJ,UIIOV B£ 1m£P UVTOl) nept­
KAEOV<; TOl) #-W8T/TOl) ... 



CARAWAN, EDWIN M., "Erotesis": Interrogation in the Courts of Fourth-Century Athens , 
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 24:3 (1983:Autumn) p.209 

EDWIN M. CARAWAN 217 

for impiety against Socrates and Andocides.24 The extant speech is of 
special interest as a testimony to the use of erotesis in logographic 
speeches~ it is, moreover, a crucial case for the procedure in the 
prosecution of homicides by apagoge.25 In this case the proceedings 
were initiated by apagoge to the Eleven. We can be sure (pace Han­
sen) that the prosecutors would have made every effort to have 
Agoratus condemned at the anakrisis, but it seems evident that only 
the fundamental legal questions were decided~ we are told that the 
magistrates insisted that the phrase ETT' alJ'ToqxVpcp be included in the 
indictment (13.6). It is clear from the context that Agoratus was 
compelled to make some very damaging admissions,26 but the possi­
bility of evasive tactics, denying wrongdoing or claiming justifiable 
cause (such as Arist. Rh. 1419a20-30 and the Rh.AI. 1444b describe) 
is clearly foreseen by the speaker, who claims to have evidence and 
arguments to refute any evasion: we; cSe aTT£.'ypaIjJE n~ ovo~Ta, Ol~L 
~v KaL aVT(W OJ.WAOY7, U"Et v , Ei cSe J..L7" ETT' aVToqxVPcp EYW aVTOV 
EgEAEygW' aTToKpLvaL CS7, j.WL ... (30). The exact wording of the inter­
rogatories is not recorded and in only one manuscript do we find the 
lemma EPflTHEII., but it is clear from the context that some ques­
tioning was planned and that the logographer had provided his client 
with a preconceived strategy of argumentation. The speaker allows for 
extempore rebuttal if Agoratus denies the fact of the crime, and goes 
on to introduce the decree against the men named in Agoratus' 

. , ." ..,. ''A ' "..,.", menUS1S: KaL J..LOL aTTOKpwaL, W yopaTE' ov yap OL~L UE EXapVOV 
YEV7,UEU"fJaL & EVUVTWV 'AfJr/VuUvv aTTavTwv ETToL'Y}uue;, EPflTHI.II. 
(32). Evidently Agoratus had based his defense solely on the inter­
pretation of the phrase ETT' aVToqxVpcp, the Eleven had been unwilling 
to condemn the accused, and there had been no decision even on 
considerable evidence. In the epilogue the speaker returns to this 
issue with some reference to the positions taken at the anakrisis, 

24 Agoratus is charged with complicity in the proscriptions of the Thirty. Because the 
defense objects that the action is time-barred 03.83), Hansen (Apagoge 132), as­
suming a statutory limitation of five years, argues that the case may have been tried 
sometime after 399, the date usually given. 

25 The precise classification of these proceedings is subject to dispute: Hansen, Apa­
goge 52, argues that Agoratus is tried as a kakourgos and the kakourgema is the homi­
cide itself, as in the case against Euxitheos (Antiph. 5.10); Gagarin (supra n.15) 317-
20 argues that the violation is the trespass of areas prohibited to homicides; Hansen 
(supra n.15) 28-29 insists that the phrase €7r' aVTocfxV~ in the indictment shows that 
the procedure is apagoge kakourgol1. 

26 The first direct questioning is found at 26-27 and has to do with the plea and the 
question of guilt: KaiTOt, 6J 'AyopaTE, d J..t1) Ti am -ry1J rrapEaKwaap).lJOIJ ... rr~ OVK 
ellJ ctlXOV ... ; The speaker proceeds to refute the defendant's plea that he had acted 
unwillingly, IJVIJ BE aKWIJ ~IJ rrpoarrOtEL ... (28). 



CARAWAN, EDWIN M., "Erotesis": Interrogation in the Courts of Fourth-Century Athens , 
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 24:3 (1983:Autumn) p.209 

218 EROTESIS: INTERROGATION IN THE COURTS 

, , ~, " '<' > ~ :r (J """ , ~!. " aKOVCJ) u aVTOV Kal. TOVT~ uUUXVP"':lEU aI., OT(. E1T aVTo~p~ 

rn cl1Taywyij f.'TTl.yEypa1TTat ... (85), and interrogates his adversary to 
suggest that Agoratus has convicted himself in his own words: 

ov yap 87}1TOV TOVTO "wvov OiE' TO E'TT' aVTOcpWp~ E'TTEL EK TOV UOV 
AOYOV Ov8EL~ cfxx,V7}UETa' a'TTOKTEiva~ TO~ av8pa~ O~ uV a'TTEypa-
." ~.,.. ~ ,., 8' ... "'" k!, ' , , 
'l'a~' ... OVK ovv a'TW~ TOV avaTOV, OVTO~ E'TT aVTo'll"'p~ Eun; n~ 

... "\. \. " '" \, , ." d ""''''''' Avo!, ovv a",,,,o~ a'TW~ 'T/ uv a'TToypa'l'a~; WUTE, 'TTW!; OVK E'TT aVT0'll"'p~ 
, .,... , (87) uv EL 0 a'TTOKTELVa~; 

The term E1T' aVToqxlJp~ in the indictment should apply to the arrest 
rather than the crime,27 and the prosecutor must go to some length to 
justify his charges. To debate the fundamental questions of guilt and 
legality by interrogation in this way suggests that there had been no 
decisive debate on these questions at the anakrisis before the Eleven. 

The next example of erotesis in the extant speeches is found in 
Lysias 22 Against the Graindealers, dating from the last years of the 
Corinthian War (ca 386). The argumentative purpose is best under­
stood in the light of what we know about the preliminaries. It is 
uncertain whether the procedure is apagoge to the council or eisange­
lia, but given the status of the defendants and the nature of the 
charges, apagoge seems more likely.28 The speaker says that the metic 
sitopoleis were taken into custody and questioned in the council by 
members acting ex officio. Some among the bouleutai had moved for 
execution without trial~ the speaker had moved for trial before the 
people's court to avert a dangerous precedent (22.2-4). It is clear 
from the speaker's own comments that the sitopoleis had made their 
plea-that they had acted under order from the authorities-at the 
hearing before the council: we are told that the archons had· been 
called and questioned on this point, E1TEI.B,y, yap O~TOI. TT,V aiTiav Eit; 
" " A..~ \ ' , " ,,, (8) EKE'VO~ aVE~pov, 1TapaKaI\.EuaVTEr; TO~ apXOVTar; TJpWTWf.LEV . 

It seems evident, too, that the interrogatories here cover the same 
ground covered at the anakrisis: iuWt; B' EpOVUI.V WU1TEP Kat. EV rn 
f30VA:n KTA.. (I 1). Nonetheless, although there had been some prelim­
inary investigation, it seems necessary to establish what arguments 
will be used for the defense. The speaker must determine (0 the 
legal status of the defendants, (2) the facts of the crime, and (3) 
responsibility. 

27 Hansen insists (Apagoge 48-52) that ETr' avTOc/xlJpcp refers to the discovery or 
apprehension by the accuser himself of the criminal 'with the goods on him', i.e., in 
incriminating circumstances, and not necessarily 'caught in the act' as it is often inter­
preted. Strictly speaking "a phrase like ETT' aVToqxlJpcp a7TOKTELVELV is a solecism": Han­
sen (supra n.15) 29. 

28 Harrison (supra n.5) 50 n.2; cf Hansen, Eisangelia 41, 114, and Apagoge 31. 



CARAWAN, EDWIN M., "Erotesis": Interrogation in the Courts of Fourth-Century Athens , 
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 24:3 (1983:Autumn) p.209 

EDWIN M. CARAWAN 
,,.... \"{3 """ ,.. , KaL TTPW'TOV #LEV ava 'TIn. ELTTE (TlJ E/-WL, #LE'TOLKO'> EL; ... TTonpov 

OJ<; 7THC70f.'ElJOl) ToLl) lJOI-'O'I) TOLl) Till) 7TOAEWI) .•. ; 'A7TOKpwa, Br, 1-'0' 
Et WI-'OAOYELI) 7TAELw mTov (TlJJ.'7Tpiau(JaL 7TEVTr/KOVTa cfxJp~v, WV <> 

vO/-Wf) E~ELVaL KEAEVEL . . . (5). 

219 

From these examples of apagoge and related procedures it appears 
that the initial hearing did not allow for preliminary debate beyond 
the question of legality and the plea. Instead, in most cases the mag­
istrate would have been reluctant to condemn on his own authority. 

In regard to the summary nature of the procedure in apagoge, in 
cases initiated before the councilor the assembly, we should compare 
the action of Pythangelos against Hierocles (W~ iEPO(J'tJAOlJ: 33211) .29 

The arrest was made to the prytaneis, who brought the case before 
the ecclesia. Aristogeiton proposed that the accused stand convicted 
and be condemned to death if he admitted having taken the sacred 
garments as charged, without allowing the plea that he had acted on 
order from the priest. Aristogeiton's proposal was indicted for ille­
gality. By law, if the accused denies the charges he has the right of 
trial before the people's court, but in this instance it is proposed that 
the pre-judicial authority, the ecclesia acting in the role of the archon, 
interpret admission of the fact as admission of guilt. It is significant 
for our purposes that in this case, just as in the case against the 
sitopoleis, the proposal for summary execution without trial is rejected 
as unconstitutional without a probouleuma (1TpWTOV J.LEV a1Tpo{3ovAEv­
TOV), and because of the severity of the sentencing without due 
process, f.1TEtTa BEtVOTaTOv KEAEVOV (Dem. 25 hypo 1). Aristogeiton's 
proposal to the council may seem to suggest that the Eleven and 
other legal officials had similar authority to interpret the statements 
of the accused as admission of guilt~ however, w~ have no single 
instance of summary execution in such cases. Instead, it seems more 
likely that the roles of the boule and the ecclesia, in the cases against 
the sitopo/eis and against Hierocles as in Archinos' apagoge, were 
exceptional owing to religious and political implications~ in both cases 
the proposal was condemned as contrary to the principles of the 
democratic judiciary. 

In the first five examples of erotesis in the extant speeches, every 
case involved some sort of preliminary. hearing, although from the 
argument it appears that the hearing left undecided many questions at 
issue. In the case against Agoratus it is evident, both from the nature 
of the procedure and from the questioning indicated in the text, that 
in the preliminary investigation the Eleven were concerned only with 

29 Hansen, Apagoge 139-40. 



CARAWAN, EDWIN M., "Erotesis": Interrogation in the Courts of Fourth-Century Athens , 
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 24:3 (1983:Autumn) p.209 

220 EROTESIS: INTERROGATION IN THE COURTS 

the question of legality and the defendant's plea. In all five examples 
the same principle seems to apply: debate on the questions at issue is 
reserved for trial before the people. In the next four examples, from 
the period after the formalization of procedures in 37817, this prin­
ciple of the people's sovereignty is all the more evident. 

It is generally agreed that written depositions were required in all 
legal action after 378, although the exact date of the requirement 
cannot be determined~ 30 it is often assumed that no new evidence 
was submitted at the trial. The latter assumption is based on the 
belief that the same principle applies in other procedures as in private 
suits on appeal from arbitration. It is now generally acknowledged, 
however, that in cases on appeal from arbitration the restriction 
against new evidence (A th. Poi. 52.2-3) is a safeguard to ensure that 
the claimants negotiate in good faith. The same principle does not 
hold true for the archon's decision at the anakrisis: he simply decides 
whether the action is or is not admissible.31 We might expect to find 
some limitations to the uses of erotesis at the trial when the facts of 
the case had been fully documented. In the following examples, 
however, special procedures were used to circumvent the new re­
strictions: the first example is found in Isaeus 11, in a private suit 
prosecuted by eisangelia to the archon~ two of the remaining ex­
amples are found in speeches given at hearings for paragraphai in 
private suits~ the fourth case is an appeal (ephesis) against expulsion 
(diapsephisis) . 

Speeches involving claims of kinship, rights of inheritance, and 
citizenship are numerous among the extant orations, and in many 
cases proof of identity and family ties depends in part upon interroga­
tories. The clearest example comes from Isaeus' speech (11) for 
Theopompus On the Estate of Hagnias (ea 360),32 where the proce­
dure followed is not dike but eisangeiia kakoseos, and in fact the 
speaker protests against this form of 'criminal' prosecution in what is 
patently a private dispute (11.28). The prosecutor brought his report 

30G. M. Calhoun, TAPA 50 (919) 177-88, observed that judicial speeches before 
37817 make no clear reference to written pleas. Thus the rule for written statements at 
the anakrisis is thought to coincide with other changes in procedure of that time. 0: 
Harrison (supra n.5) 98-99. 

31 For the view that no new evidence was submitted at the trial, see Lipsius (supra 
n.D 829; Leisi (supra n.1) 85; Bonner and Smith (supra n.2) I 283-84; for the argu­
ment followed here, see Harrison (supra n.5) 97 and n.2, 102. 

32 On the lengthy dispute on the estate of Hagnias, and the date of Isaeus' speech 
written for Theopompus, see the discussion in Wyse's commentary (supra n.1) 671-
78; cf W. Thompson, De Hagniae Hereditate: An Athenian Inheritance Case (Mnemosyne 
Suppl. 44 [1976]). 



CARAWAN, EDWIN M., "Erotesis": Interrogation in the Courts of Fourth-Century Athens , 
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 24:3 (1983:Autumn) p.209 

EDWIN M. CARAWAN 221 

(eisangelia) before the archon eponymos as the competent magistrate 
in property disputes. It is clear that the archon's hearing was not 
intended to decide the issue without trial but to prepare the case for 
speedy trial before the people's court. Thus, at 5, the erotesis is used 
to establish fundamental facts of the case that might ordinarily be 
answered at the anakrisis: 

Is the child a brother or nephew, either brother's son or sister's 
son, cousin or cousin's son ... ? Which of these connections [can 
he claim], which the law requires to determine 'next of kin'? ... 
You must explain, then, the claim of kinship, what relation this 
boy is to Hagnias. Tell them! You see that he cannot explain their 
kinship and answers anything but what you need to know. 33 

The uses of erotesis in Isaeus 11, and in Lysias 13, are especially 
significant as examples of cross-examination in logographic speeches 
in proceedings where the questions at issue had not been debated in 
preliminaries. The next three examples are also found in logographic 
speeches in cases where important questions at issue seem to be first 
debated at the trial. The first two are in speeches for the paragraphe 
hearing in private suits of about the same period, speeches 35 and 36 
in the Demosthenic corpus.34 In these two the eroteseis are directed 
to the question of legality. 

The synegoros for Phormio (Dem. 36) against Apollodorus makes 
extensive use of direct questioning against the legal basis of his ad­
versary's claim. After a brief diegesis the speaker addresses the two 
questions upon which the legality of the charges must be decided: in 
eighteen years Apollodorus had not contested the settlement of his 
father's estate; the plaintiff has not been able to produce any docu­
ments to support his claim. 

TIS EveLIUU' av TO: 1TaTpc;,a I-'.ry A.a/3wv 'Ypal-'f.UXTa E~ ciJv €JL€A.A.ev 
erCT€u(Jm T.ryV KaTaA.€LCp(Jel,uav OVULaV; ... OVK av €)(OL~ E1TL8el,~m 

W~ EveKaA.eua~ 1TWTrOT' lnrEP T[;W 'Ypal-'~TWV ... EK 1Toiwv 'YpaW 
~TWV TO:~ 8LKa~ EA.a'Y)(aVe~; (36.19) 

Speech 35 defends the legality of the speaker's suit against Lacritus 
for fraud; in the paragraphe Lacritus has objected that suits involving 

33 11.4-6: 'E1TiO"XEe;. ~pwTr/O"w O"E. aOEAc/xk ~O"(J' 0 mite; 'Ayviov <..;; > aOEAcPLooli<; ~~ 
aSEAcjxJv ..;; E~ aSEAcPiJe; YEyovwe;, ..;; aVEIjJH)." ..;; E~ aVEljJwv 7Tpoe; J-LT/TpOe; ..;; 7Tpoe; 7TaTpoe;; 
TI. TOVTWV Tevv OVO~TWV, ole; 0 vOJ-LOe; T7]v aYXLO"TELaV Sl.wm; ... set o,ry O"E T-rye; aYXLO"­
TELae;, 0 n 0 1TaLe; 'Ayv0: 7TPOO",ryKEL, TO YEvoe; Ei7TELV. cPpaO"ov oijv TOVTOLO"i. aiO"(JaVEO"(JE 
on OVK €XEL TT,V O"V'Y'YEVHa v Ei7TetV, aAA' a7TOKpivETaL 7TaVTa ,.w.AAOV ..;; 0 OEL j.La(JEtV 
v,.w.e;. 

34 See Isager and Hansen (supra n.4) 123-29 on procedure in paragraphe; 169-70 
and 177 on dating Oem. 35 and 36. 



CARAWAN, EDWIN M., "Erotesis": Interrogation in the Courts of Fourth-Century Athens , 
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 24:3 (1983:Autumn) p.209 

222 EROTESIS: INTERROGATION IN THE COURTS 

business dealings of this kind are inadmissible before the people's 
courts. Thus the speaker demands (45-49): 

For what reason, Lacritus, does this principle [of prosecution for 
fraud] hold good in your case but will not be valid for me? Are not 
the same written laws valid for us all, and the same principle of 
justice in commercial disputes? ... Where then is such a suit ad­
missible? Just give a straight answer, according to the laws (8i8af 

'" A ' , ~ , , \. ' , , " 49) OJl, W aKpt'TE, /-LOJlOJl utKaWJI 'TL l\.E'ywJI Kat Ka'Ta 'TO~ JlO/-LO~, • 

In these arguments for the prosecution and in Oem. 36 for the de­
fense we have two examples of debate at paragraphe hearings on 
questions of legality that might have been answered ordinarily at the 
anakrisis. The growing importance of the paragraphe points to a final 
phase in the decline of the archon's judicial authority. Even on the 
fundamental question of legality erotesis and other decisive arguments 
were often reserved for debate before the dikastai. 

From the same period we have a fourth instance of erotesis in the 
speech Against Euboulides (Oem. 57), in an appeal against expulsion 
(8c.at/JT,cfnuts TedV 8'T)I.L<JTWV).35 In this case, again, the accusers have 
taken advantage of a special procedure to prosecute a private dispute, 
without the usual safeguards and restrictions. From the diegesis it is 
clear that the questions at issue have not been decided before the 
trial. The speaker in his own defense challenges his adversary to 
debate the issues in the time allotted to the speaker. It has been 
acknowledged that such challenges indicate erotesis and extempore 
d b 36" '" ""..::, - ., f30 '\. ' • , e ate: E7TL TOV E#LOV VuuTOS' OUTLS' VI\.ETaL TOVTWV TaVaVTLa J.LaP-
rop'T)UClTW (61). Again, in the epilogue (76-78), the speaker himself 
responds to the customary questions in proof of identity, the same 
questions asked in the dokimasia of candidates for public office (c! 
Ath.Pol 53.3), and, one may assume, a conventional procedure in 
such disputes involving rights of citizenship or inheritance. 

These last four examples (Is. 11.5; Oem. 35.35-49, 36.19, 57.61), 
from the period after 37817 to the 340's, illustrate two aspects of the 
conservatism of Athenian court proceedings. All are found in logo­
graphic speeches in private suits in procedures where the usual op­
portunities for preliminary debate on the questions at issue had been 
circumvented. None of these speeches is likely to have been pub­
lished in any revised form: the text we have is essentially the pre­
pared text. Thus we have considerable evidence, first, that logogra­
phy did not put an end to extempore tactics, second, that the re-

35 For the procedure in diapsephisis see Bonner and Smith (supra n.2) I 319. 
36 Leisi (supra n.l) 40-41. 



CARAWAN, EDWIN M., "Erotesis": Interrogation in the Courts of Fourth-Century Athens , 
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 24:3 (1983:Autumn) p.209 

EDWIN M. CARAWAN 223 

quirement for written depositions at the anakrisis did not restrict ero­
tesis at the trial. In most cases there was no restriction against new 
evidence, and in many cases even the most fundamental questions 
were debated first before the dikastai. Only the charges, the plea, and 
the question of legality were decided at the anakrisis, and even the 
question of legality could be deferred by paragraphe. 

The next four examples, however, are all found in procedures 
where there was some preliminary debate and most of the questions 
at issue seem to be clearly defined. All occur in speeches in public 
suits of some notoriety in the prosecution of rhetores, and in each 
case it is likely that the received text is a version revised for publi­
cation. We cannot be sure how closely the extant speeches follow the 
speaker's actual delivery, but it seems inherently unlikely that the 
published version would have included such provocative tactics as 
erotesis if the speaker had not had the confidence to challenge his 
adversary in the actual proceedings. 

The speech of Demosthenes (19) in the graphe parapresbeias against 
Aeschines provides the first of these examples. It is clear that the 
questions at issue and the essential arguments on both sides were 
defined at the hearing before the euthynos:37 Kat Tis /-Wv KaTaJUXP­
roPE(" CP";'UEt, Bwpa Aa{3E(,v; Nonetheless, it seems necessary to chal­
lenge the adversary to dispute the speaker's arguments: ... TrPO" BE 
TOC:" TrpayJUXutv mho" aVTiKa B-ry uV uavTov. O:TrOKptVat yap BEVP' 
0: vau'T£x" #-WI. (120). 

The next two examples come from speeches in the paranomon gra­
phai: Hyperides' Against Aristogeiton (frr.32-43) and Demosthenes' 
On the Crown (18). These suits for illegality were initiated by a sworn 
oath (hypomosia) of intent to prosecute a decree or proposal before 
the assembly; the council then prepared the probou!euma for a decree 
for trial before the dicastery. This initiating procedure in itself tended 
to restrict the preliminary debate as such, although the proposal under 
indictment would have been first debated in the assembly and many 
of the jurors at the trial would have been familiar with the issue: in 
effect parliamentary debate took the place of the anakrisis.38 

In the fragment of Hyperides' speech reported in Rutilius Lupus 
(fr.32), the phrase saepius his verbis . .. requiris suggests that the issue 

37 M. Pierart, "Les EY8YNOI atheniens," AntClass 40 (1971) 560-63; c1 Harrison 
(supra n.5) 21 0-11. 

38 Hansen, Sovereignty 50-51, "the majority of the jurors in a graphe paranomon had 
already attended the session of the assembly during which the proposal was discussed, 
and no doubt the decree was the subject of public debate in the interval between the 
hearings of the case by the assembly and by the court"; (f Oem. 22.59. 



CARAWAN, EDWIN M., "Erotesis": Interrogation in the Courts of Fourth-Century Athens , 
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 24:3 (1983:Autumn) p.209 

224 EROTESIS: INTERROGATION IN THE COURTS 

had been debated in the assembly - unless we are to assume that this 
represents an editorial comment in the published version. 

quid a me saepius his verbis de mea officio requiris? "Scripsisti ut servis 
libertas daretur?" Scripsi, ne liberi servitutem experirentur, "Scripsisti ut 
exules restituerentur?" Scripsi, ne quis exilio afficeretur. "Leges igitur 
quae prohibebant haec no nne legebas?" Non pOleram, propierea quod 
lilleris earum arma Macedonum opposila officiebanl. 

In another report of these proceedings ([Plut.] Mor. 849A) the fa­
mous dictum OVK E'YW TO t/Jr,c!>t..Uf.UX. E'Ypat/Ja, -;, BE EV Xat..povE0 J,UXX71 
probably represents a response to erotesis~ apparently Aristogeiton 
demanded E'Ypat/Ja<; uV TOVTO TO IjJ";'cPt..U'/-Ul; as Dinarchus 0.83) was 
later to interrogate Demosthenes. 

In Demosthenes' oration On the Crown the speaker makes per­
sistent use of direct questioning to his adversary 08.63-71, 124, 
196), and there is ample evidence that these questions represent 
eroteseis in the actual delivery. In his speech for the prosecution 
Aeschines claims that he has been threatened with cross-examination: 
TavTa BE KaTapt..fJl-'71uaI-'EvOe;, we; aKOl)W, ~AAEt.. I-'E 7T'apaKaAE"V Kat 
• " .., fJ'\' , fJ • , ./, ' ,I,. E'TT'EpWTaV ... Kav 1-'71 E",W a'TroKpt..vau at.., ... EKKaAVo/Et..V J.'E 'P71ut.. 

7T'POfFEAfJwv Kat a~Et..v E7T't TO {371/-Ul Kat ava'YKaUEt.V a'TToKpivaafJat 
(3.55). Demosthenes' challenge to Aeschines to reveal a better policy 
(18.63-71) suggests in itself that the issues had been debated publicly 
and the speaker was sure of his ground. Later commentators in 
antiquity seem to have assumed that such questions demanded some 
response.39 

The last of the examples that can be dated is found in Dinarchus' 
speech Against Demosthenes 0). The prosecution was initiated by 
apophasis, or report of the council of the Areopagus to the assembly. 
The council of the Areopagus undertook the preliminary investiga­
tion, and in this case, as in few other public suits, all the evidence 
was entered at the preliminary hearing: not a single authentic deposi­
tion is read in the four surviving speeches.40 We may assume that the 
evidence was cited in the apophasis proper, the report of the Areo­
pagus to the assembly. Thus the dikastai were well acquainted with 
the evidence, and Dinarchus' challenge is a safe strategy (1.83): 

91 ta'. ' ,... .4. I () ~ ,.",,..., 
eypa'l'a" uv TOVTO, LJ.'YJJ.WU EVE"; eypat/Ja,,· OVK EUTW aVTH'7THV. 
E'YEVETO r, f30VA~ KVpia <TOU '7TpO<TTCl:~aVTO"; E'YEVETO. 'TE()va<Tt 'TWV 

39 See the essay ITep' OtATJJ.t"wTOV in Hermog. lnv. 4.6: OVO €PWTT/fTH<; €pWTwvTe<; TOV 
ChTtOLKOV 7TPO<; EKaTEpav WJ,.tEV el<; AVULV 7TapauKevau~Vot. OeL oE Ta<; €PWrT/fTH<; 
€VaVTLa<; aAA-y}Aat<; elvUL, KTA. 

40 Hansen, Eisangelia 39-40. 



CARAWAN, EDWIN M., "Erotesis": Interrogation in the Courts of Fourth-Century Athens , 
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 24:3 (1983:Autumn) p.209 

EDWIN M. CARAWAN 

7rOALTWJJ avSpE<;; TE(}vaat. KVPWV TJV TO (J"OV 1/J..qc!xU/.Ul KaT' EK€i­
VWV; M'VTaTOV aVTEt7TELV. 

225 

Demosthenes himself had proposed the investigation that found him 
guilty~ the purpose of the interrogation is to provoke any arguments 
against the legality of the proceedings. The speaker's next questions 
are meant to refute Demosthenes' defense that he had proven his 
integrity in handling public monies (89-90): 

OVTW~ o~v, ciJ apuTTE, Ei7TE J.LOt, ¢VAa~Of.,UV, Eav uV /-lEV ELKom Ta-
\ n,~. " ., 1:' rl I: ' , A..~' " Aa VTa l\afJU'V EXYl~ ... ETEpOt u ocra uTI 7TOTE a7T07TE"P"cr/-lEVOL EtcrL; 

" '\\" 'I:' 1:' "" ~ ... Kat 7TOTEpa Kal\l\WV Ecrn, 7TpO~ uE uLKaWTEpov, a7TaVT EV TctJ 
KOWc;; ¢vAaTTEcr6m ... 71 TOV~ p.ryTOpa~ ... fjtTJP7TaK(ha~ EXHV; 

These last four examples of erotesis from proceedings against rhe­
fores resemble the examples from earlier periods in form and argu­
mentative function: the interrogatories are directed to the questions 
of guilt and legality~ they are not literary ornamentation, as some 
commentators have supposed,41 but indicate a common practice in 
the courts. 

There are two further indications of erotesis in speeches that have 
not been dated or identified with any certainty: Isaeus fr.2 and Hy­
perides fr.B55. These examples suggest some general trends in the 
practice of judicial debate. The earlier of the two, from Isaeus, is cited 
by Dionysius (Isae. 12). The speaker's argument suggests that exam­
inational questions were a conventional if not obligatory part of the 
rhetoric of accusation: the judges were accustomed to hearing the 
issues clearly phrased in a few straightforward interrogatories. 

£XPT]V DE aVTov, eL 7TEP n oLKawv £¢pOVEt ... Kat £~ETa~HV EKacr­

Ta TWV £V Tc;; AOY~, TOVTOV TOV TP07TOV 7Tap' £J.LOV 7TVv6avof.,Uvov. 

dcr¢opa~ Aoyi~YI 7Tocra~; Tocra~. KaTa 7TOcrov apyvpwv dcrEVTlVEY­
~va~; KaTa TOcrov Kat TOcroV. Kat 7TOW. I/J'Yl¢LcrIJ-UTa; TaVTL. TaVTa~ 
EiA.ry¢am TLVE~; OLDE. (Kat TaVTa IJ-UpropOf.,UVOV crKEl/lacr6m ... ) 

The second example, from the latter half of the fourth century, 
shows how speakers in the courts may have departed from formal 
erotesis to take full advantage of their position on the bema in direct 
questioning to the adversary: O:1T(}KpLVai J.J,Ot, 'EpJ.J,eLa, wrrrrep Kaffn. 

41 C. D. Adams, for example, ad Lys. 12.25-26, in Lysias. Selected Speeches (New 
York 1905) 356, recognizes the interrogatory formula in the questions at 12.25, but re­
gards the follow-up questions at 26 as "rhetorical questions" for stylistic effect, with 
reference to the pusmatikon schema in Tiberius De figuris (Spengel Rh. Gr. III 64). 
Thompson (supra n.32) ad Isae. 11.4-6 makes the suggestion that the questions in 
Lys. 12.25-26 are simply rhetorical embellishment. On Din. 1.83 see Lipsius (supra 
n.1) 9170.60. 



CARAWAN, EDWIN M., "Erotesis": Interrogation in the Courts of Fourth-Century Athens , 
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 24:3 (1983:Autumn) p.209 

226 EROTESIS: INTERROGATION IN THE COURTS 

This fragment confirms many indications that the adversary was not 
always 'called to the stand' for cross-examination, but his answers or 
his silence were no less incriminating. 

Thus, over the course of the fourth century, changes in practice 
and procedure, rather than restricting erotesis within set speeches, 
called for new tactics in debate at the trial. In such summary pro­
cedures as apagoge and endeixis only the defendant's plea and the 
legality of the charges were decided at the anakrisis; in many cases 
the major questions at issue were first debated in court. In ordinary 
procedures in most cases the rules for submitting evidence at the 
hearing were no obstacle to erotesis; in paragraphe the sovereign 
court assumed authority to judge even the question of legality. In the 
prosecution of rhetores by graphe paranomon and related procedures, 
in political disputes involving well-known policies and personalities, 
the requirement to answer the speaker's questions could still be 
invoked to discredit the opposition. In logo graphic speeches and in 
speeches for publication erotesis is not a stylistic ornament but a sign 
of common practices in the courts. 

GASTONIA, NORTH CAROLINA 

September, 1983