1987 年 96 巻 7 号 p. 1107-1141,1256-
The Athenian democracy, with most of its magistrates chosen by lot, needed an elaborate system to review the accountability of all the citizens holding offices. Among the system's many legal procedures, eisangelia (the impeachment trial) was the most dramatic for its political judgements, often posing the death penalty, on many noted Athenian politicians, including Perikles. The author concentrates on the eisangelia for major public offences, like overthrowing democracy or treason, which would threaten the existence of Athens herself. Two problems are discussed in this paper, although many others have been disputed hotly. One is what kind of procedure was followed in this type of eisangelia, and the other what function it had in the political context of the Athenian democracy. The author also considers the relationship between these two areas. Concerning the procedure of eisangelia, the most disputed points have been (i)which of the three bodies, i.e., boule (council), ekklesia (assembly) and dikasterion (court), gave the first hearing, and (ii)whether it was possible for the boule to refer the case directly to the court, without any reference to the assembly, which was the sovereign body. On the first point, the author regards the possibility that eisangelia was brought first not only to the kyria ekklesia but also to the boule, if only the assembly gave eventually a decree to send the case to the final hearing court, though some scholars seem to think the former was the only body to take the initiative. On the next point, the author accepts the view that this type of process ("the by-passing of the ekklesia") could exist lawfully, in spite of some arguments which may interpret the process to be unconstitutional. Concerning the political function of eisangelia, we cannot help but admit that actually it never functioned to insure democracy, which was the eisangelia's original role assigned by law. It is exceedingly ironical, on the contrary, that it was used by oligarchs to overthrow the democracy in 404 B.C.. Moreover, very interestingly, the above-mentioned process of "by-passing of the ekklesia" was employed in this oligarchic conspiracy, not accidentally. It must not be overlooked, on the other hand, that another type of procedure existed by which the assembly's decree played a significant part in impeaching many politicians and generals by the so-called radical democrats. It could be explained, therefore, in terms of this dualism of procedure why eisangelia was used not only by democrats but also by oligarchs. Eisangelia's function seems therefore just as complicated as its complex procedures.