Greece Early Laws/Ancient Greek Law

(Greece/Greek/Crete/Creta/Kriti):

Early Laws

After the Dark Ages - About 1200-900 BC - and beginning at about 900 BC, the Ancient Greeks had no official laws or punishments.

Murders were settled by members of the victim's family, who would then go and kill the murderer.

This often began endless blood feuds.

It was not until the middle of the seventh century BC that the Greeks first began to establish official laws.

Around 620 BC Draco, the lawgiver, set down the first known written law of Ancient Greece. These laws were so harsh that his name gave rise to our English word "Daconian" meaning an unreasonably harsh law.

Solon,an Athenian statesman and lawmaker, refined Draco's laws and is credited with "democratizing" justice by making the courts more accessible to citizens. Solon created many new laws that fit into the four basic categories of Ancient Greek law. The only one of Draco's laws that Solon kept when he was appointed law giver in about 594 BC was the law that established exile as the penalty for homicide.

>>>>>

GREEK LAW.

Ancient Greek law is a branch of comparative jurisprudence the importance of which has been long ignored.

Oreek law Jurists have commonly left its study to scholars, who and corn- have generally refrained from comparing the instituparative tions of the Greeks with those of other nations. Greek Iuris law has, however, been partially compared with Roman law, and has been incidentally illustrated with the aid of the primitive institutions of the Germanic nations. It may now be studied in its earlier stages in the laws of Gortyn; its influence may be traced in legal documents preserved in Egyptian papyri; and it may be recognized as a consistent whole in its ultimate relations to Roman law in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire.

The existence of certain panhellenic principles of law is implied by the custom of settling a difference between two Greek states, or between members of a single state, by resorting to external arbitration. The general unity of Greek law is mainly to be seen in the laws of inheritance and adoption, in laws of commerce and contract; and in the publicity uniformly given to legal agreements.

No systematic collection of Greek laws has come down to us. Our knowledge of some of the earliest notions of the subject is derived from the Homeric poems. For the details of Attic law we have to depend on ex parte statements in the speeches of the Attic orators, and we are some- rities. times enabled to check those statements by the trustworthy, but often imperfect, aid of inscriptions. Incidental illustrations of the laws of Athens may be found in the Laws of Plato, who deals with the theory of the subject without exercising any influence on actual practice. The Laws of Plato are criticized in the Politics of Aristotle, who, besides discussing laws in their relation to constitutions, reviews the work of certain early Greek lawgivers. The treatise on the Constitution of Athens includes an account of the jurisdiction of the various public officials and of the machinery of the law courts, and thus enables us to dispense with the second-hand testimony of grammarians and scholiasts who derived their information from that treatise (see CONSTITUTION OF ATHENS). The works of Theophrastus On the Laws, which included a recapitulation of the laws of various barbaric as well as Grecian states, are now represented by only a few fragments (Nos. 97-106, ed. Wimmer).

Our earliest evidence is to be sought in the Homeric poems. In the primitive society of the heroic age (as noticed by Plato) written laws were necessarily unknown; for, in Law In that early period, they had no letters; they lived ffomer.

by habit and by the customs of their ancestors (Laws, 680 A). We find a survival from a still more primitive time in the savage Cyclops, who is unfamiliar with dooms of law, or rules of right (ot5m &!cas eli esbra oire O~peo~s-a1, Od. ix. 215 and 112 f.).

Dike (lieu), assigned by Curtius (Etym. 134) to the same root as liticpvum, primarily means a way pointed out, a course proscribedbyusage, hence way or fashion, manner DIkE or precedent. In the Homeric poems it sometimes signifies a doom of law, a legal right, a lawsuit ; while it is rarely synonymous with justice, as in Od. XIV. 84, where the gods honor justice, rtovo-i liicu1v.

Various senses of right are expressed in the same poems by themis (Oi~sms), a term assigned (ib. 254) to the same root as rtO~jsm. In its primary sense themis is that which has been laid Tb 1 down; hence a particular decision or doom. The en? s. plural themistes implies a body of such precedents, rules of right, which the king receives from Zeus with his sceptre (Ii. ix. 99). Themis and dike have sometimes been compared with the Roman fas and jus respectively, the former being regarded as of divine, the latter of human origin; and this is more satisfactory than the latest view (that of Hirzel), which makes counsel the primary meaning of themis.

Thesmos (Oo-u61), an ordinance (from the same root as themis), is not found in Homer, except in the last line of the Tb original form of the Odyssey (xxiii. 296), where it probably No,ijs refers to the ordinance of wedlock. The common 0 term for law, iuoe, is first found in Hesiod, but not in a specially legal sense (e.g. Op. 276).

A trial for homicide is one of the scenes represented on the shield of Achilles (Il. xviii. 497-508). The folk are here to be seen thronging the market-place, where a strife has Tb ~ arisen between two men as to the price of a man that scele. has been slain. The slayer vows that he has paid all (e117fro 7r6.vr airo6oiimnu), the kinsman of the slain protests that he has received nothing (matmero un~e iX~a0at); both are eager to join issue before an umpire, and both are favored by their friends among the folk, who are kept back by the heralds. The cause is tried by the elders, who are seated on polished stones in a sacred circle, and in the midst there lie two talents of gold, to give to him who, among them all, sets forth the cause most rightly (r~ ~buev & t.mer ro~ot &icilm tOijprara eZirot).

The discussions of the above passage have chiefly turned on two points: (I) the legal questions at issue; and (2) the destination of the two talents. (1) In the ordinary view (a), it issolely a question whether the fine or blood-money, corresponding to the Wer geld (see WERGELD, TEUTONIC PEOPLES, BRITAIN: Anglo-Saxon) of the old Germanic law (Grimm, Rechtsalterthiimer, 661 f.), has been paid or not. (This is accepted by Thonissen, Lipsius, Sidgwick and Ridgeway.) In the other view (b), it is held that the slayer claimed to pay the fine, and the kinsman of the slain refused to accept any compensation (so Passow and Leaf, approved by Pollock). (2) The two talents (shown by Ridgeway to be a small sum, equal in value to two oxen) are awarded either (a) to the litigant who pleads his cause most justly before them (so Thonissen, Shilleto and Lipsius, in accordance with the Attic use of phrases like It,o~ sLir~~v), or (b) to the judge who, among all the elders, gives the most righteous judgment (so Maine, approved by Sidgwick, Pollock, Leaf and Ridgeway).

On this controversy, cf. Maines Ancient Law, chap. x. pp. 385 f., 405 f., ed. Pollock; Thonissen, Droit penal (1875), 27; P. M. Laurence (on Shilletos view) in Journal of Philology, viii. (1879), 125 f.; Ridgeway, ib. x. (1882), 3of., and Journal of Hellenic Studies, viii. (1887), 133 f.; and Leaf, ib. Viii. 122 f., and in his Commentary on Iliad, ii. (1902), 61 0-614; also J. H. Lipsius in Leipziger Studien, xii. (1890), 225-23!, criticized by H. Sidgwick in Classical Review, viii. (1894), 1-4.

We are told elsewhere in Homer that sometimes a man accepted blood-money from the slayer of his brother or his son, and that the slayer remained in the land after paying this penalty (Ii. ix. 633). As a rule the slayer found it safest to flee (Od. xxiii.

118 f), but even so, lie might be pursued by the friends of the slain (Od. xv. 272-278). If he remained, the land was not (as in later ages) deemed to be polluted by his presence. In Homer, Orestes does not slay Clytaemestra, and he needs no purification for slaying Aegisthus.

The laws of Sparta are ascribed to the legislation of Lycurgus, whose traditional date is 884 B.C. Written laws are said to have Oreek!.aw. been expressly forbidden by Lycurgus (Plutarch, givers: Lycurgus, 13); hence the laws of Sparta are simply Lycurgus a body of traditional observances. We learn that all at Sparta. trials for homicide came before the Council of Elders and lasted for several days, and that all civil causes were tried by the ephors (q.v).. We are also told that originally the land was equally divided among the citizens of Sparta, and that this equality was enforced by law (Polybius V~. 45-46). Early in the 4th century the ephor Epitadeus, owing to a disagreement with his son, enacted that every Spartan should be allowed to transfer his estate and his allotment to any other person (Plutarch, Agis, 5), while Aristotle, in a much-debated passage of the Politics (ii. 9. 14-15), criticizes the Spartan constitution for allowing the accumulation of property in a few hands, an evil aggravated by the large number of heiresses ; a man (he adds) may bestow his heiress on any one he pleases; and, if he dies intestate, this privilege descends to his heir.

Law was first reduced to writing in the 7th century B.C. A written code is a necessary condition of just judgment, and such a code was the first concession which the people Ei in the Greek cities extorted from the ruling aristocracies.

~ The change was generally effected with the aid of a single legislator entrusted with complete authority to draw up a code.

The first communities to reach this stage of progress were the Greek colonies in the West. The Epizephyrian Locrians Zaleucus near the extreme south of Italy, received the earliest at Lo,cri written code from Zaleucus (663 B.C.), whose strict Epize-, and severe legislation put an end to a period of strifc phyril. and confusion, though we know little of his laws except that they attached definite penalties to each offence and that they strictly protected the rights of property. Twc centuries later, his code was adopted even by th Charond:s Athenian colony of Thurii in south Italy (44~ B.C.)

1~.a Charondas, the disciple of Zaleucus, became th lawgiver, not only of his native town of Catana on th east coast of Sicily, but also of other Chalcidian colonies II Sicily and Italy. The laws of Charondas were marked by 1

singular precision, but there was nothing (says Aristotle that he could claim as his own except the specia Rhegluin. procedure against false witnesses (Politics, II. 12. II)

In the case of judges who neglected to serve in~th law courts, he inflicted a large fine on the rich and a small fini on the poor (ib. vi. (iv.) 13. 2). Androdamas of Rhegium gay laws on homicide and on heiresses to the Chalcidian!

Phioiaus .

of Coriah. of Thrace, while Philolaus ef Corinth provided th Thebans with laws of adoption with a view ti ~preventing any change in the number of the allotments of lani (ib. Ii. 12. 8-14).

Local legislation in Crete is represented by the laws of the important city of Gortyn, which lies to the south of Ida in a plain watered by the Lethaeus. Part of that stream forms a sluice for a water-mill, and at or near this mill some fragmentary inscriptions were found by French archaeologists in 1857 and 5879. The great inscription, to which most of our knowledge of the laws is due, was not discovered until 1884. It had been preserved on a wall 27 ft. long and 5 ft. high, the larger part of which was buried in the ground, while its farthest extremity passed obliquely athwart the bed of the mill-stream. It was necessary to divert the water before the last four columns could be transcribed by the Italian scholar, Federico Halbherr, whose work was completed in the same year by the excavation and transcription of the first eight columns by the German scholar, E. Fabricius. In the following year Halbherr discovered more than eighty small fragments on the neighboring site of a former temple of the Pythian Apollo.

These fragments, which are far earlier than the great inscription above-mentioned, have been assigned to about 650 B.c. They precede the introduction of coined money into Crete, the penalties being reckoned, not in coins, but in caidrons. They deal with the powers of the magistrates and the observances of religion, but are mainly concerned with private matters of barter and sale, dowry and adoption, inheritance and succession, fines for trespass and questions of blood-money. As in the code of Zaleucus, we have a fixed scale of penalties, including the fine of a single tripod, and ranging from one to a hundred caldrons.

The great inscription is perhaps two centuries later (c. 450 B.c.). It consists of a number of amendments or additions to an earlier code, and it deals exclusively with private law, in which the family and family property occupy the largest part. The procedure is entirely oral; oaths and other oral testimony are alone admitted; there are no documentary proofs, and no record of the verdict except in the memory of the judge or of his remembrancer. All the causes are tried before a single judge, who varies according to the nature of the suit. Where the law specially enjoins it, he is bound to give judgment (Iuc&I~p) in accordance with the law and the witnesses or oaths, but, in other cases, he is permitted to take oath and decide (Kptvav) in view of the contentions of the parties, as distinguished from the declarations of the witnesses. Offences against the person are treated as matters of private compensation according to a carefully graduated tariff. In certain cases the defendant may clear himself by an oath of purgation with the support of cojurors (uuuiaf), the Eideshelfer of old Germanic law (Grimm 859 f.), who have no necessary knowledge of the facts. There is no interference with the exposure of infants, except in the interest of the father (if the child is free-born) or of the lord (in the case of serfs). The law of debt is primitive, though less severe than that of the early Romans. In contrast with these primitive elements we have, others which are distinctly progressive. The estates of husband, wife and Sons are regarded as absolutely distinct. Wills are unknown, even in their most restricted form. Elaborate provisions are made ~o secure with all speed the marriage of an heiress ; she is bound to marry the eldest of her paternal uncles or to surrender part of her estate, and it is only if there are no paternal uncles that she is permitted to marry one (and that the eldest) of their sons. Adoption is made by the simple procedure of mounting a block of stone in the market-place and making a public announcement at a time when the citizens are assembled. The adopted son does not inherit any larger share than that of a daughter. Any one who desires to repudiate his adopted son makes a public announcement as before, and the person repudiated receives, by way of nominal compensation, the gift of a small number of staters. In these later laws of Gortyn we hav reached the time when payments are made, not in caidrons, bul in coins. In the inscription itself the laws are simply described a1 these writings.

The text of the great inscription was first published by E. Fabriciur in At/i. Mitt/i. ix. (1885), 362-384; there is a cast of the whole is the Cambridge Museum of Classical Archaeology. Cf. Comparetti~ Leggi di Gortyna (1893); BUcheler and Zittelmann in Rhein. Mus xl. (1885); Dareste, Haussoullier and Th. Reinach, Inscr. juridique recques, iii. (1894), 352-493 (with the literature there quoted) ng. trans. by Roby in Law Quarterly Review (1886), 135-152; sd also E. S. Roberts, Gk. Epigraphy, i. 39 f,52 f., 325-332; J. W

Headlam in Journal of Hellenic Studies, xiii. (1892-1893), 48-69

P. Gardner and F. B. Jevons, Greek Antiquities (1895), 560-574

W. Wyse in Whibleys Companion to Greek Studies (1905), 378-383

and Hermann Lipsius, Zum Recht von Gortyns (Leipzig, 1909).

A Roman writer ascribes to the Athenians the very inventioJ of lawsuits (Aelian, Var. Hist. Iii. 38), and the Athenians Athenm themselves regarded their tribunals of homicide as institutions of immemorial antiquity (Isocr. Paneg. 4o~

On the abolition of the single decennial archon i in 683 B.C., his duties were distributed over several officials holding office for one year only. The judicial duties thenceforth discharged by the chief archon (the archon), in the case of citizens, The47three weredischarged bythepolemarchin the case of foreign archons. settlers or metics (,uirotKof); while the king-archon, who succeeded to the religious functions of the ancient kings, decided cases connected with religious observances (see ARcHoN). He also presided over the primitive council of the state, which was identical with the council of the Areopagus. It was possibly with a view to the recognition of the rights of the lower classes that, about the middle of the 7th century B.C., the three archons were raised to the number of nine by the institution of the joint board of the six thesmot/zetae, who super The intended the judicial system in general, kept a record th:~e. of all legal decisions, and drew attention to any defects in the laws. It is probable that in their title we have the earliest example in Attic Greek of the use of thesmos in the sense of 4aw.

The constitution was at this time thoroughly oligarchical. With a view, however, to providing a remedy for the conflict between the several orders of the state, the first code raco. of Athenian law was drawn up and published by Draco (strictly Dracon), who is definitely described as a lhesmothets (621). His laws were known as thesmoi. The distinctive part of his legislation was the law of homicide, which was held in such high esteem that it was left unaltered in the legislation of Solon and in the democratic restoration of 411 B.C. It is partly preserved in an inscription of 409, which has been restored with the aid of quotations from the orators (C.I.A. i. 61; Inscr. fund. grecques, ii. 1. 1-24; and Hicks, Gk. Hist. Inscr. No. 59). It drew a careful distinction between different kinds of homicide. Of the rest of Dracos legislation we only know that Aristotle (Politics, Ii. 12, 13) was struck by the severity of the penalties, and that the creditor was permitted to seize the person of the debtor as security for his debt.

The conflict of the orders was not allayed until both parties agreed in choosing Solon as mediator and as archon (594 B.C.).

Solon cancelled all mortgages and debts secured on o On. the person of the debtor, set free all who had become slaves for debt, and forbade such slavery for the future (see SoLoN). Thenceforth every citizen had also the right of appeal to the law-courts, and the privilege of claiming legal satisfaction on behalf of any one who was wronged. Cases of constitutional law (inter alia) came before large law-courts numbering hundreds of jurors, and the power of voting in these law-courts made the people masters of the constitution (Aristotles Constitution of Athens, c. 9). Solons legislation also had an important effect on the law of property. In primitive times, on a mans death, his money or lands remained in the family, and, even in the absence of direct descendants, the owner could not dispose of his property by will. Permission to execute a will was first given to Athenian citizens by the laws of Solon. But the Athenian Will was only an inchoate Testament (Maines Ancient Law, c. vi.); for this permission was expressly limited to those citizens who had no direct male descendants (Dem. Lept. 102; Plutarch, Solon, 21; cf. Wyse on Isaeus, p. 325).

The law of intestate succession is imperfectly preserved in I. The rock of the Acropolis, outside the earliest of the city-walls, I was the proper place for the trial of persons charged with preOn the meditated homicide, or with wounding with intent to kill. Areopagus. The penalty for the former crime was death; for the latter exile; and, in either case, the property was confiscated.

If the votes were equal, the person accused was acquitted. The I proceedings lasted for three days, and each side might make two speeches. After the first speech the person accused of premeditated homicide was mercifully permitted to go into exile, in which case his property was confiscated, and in the ordinary course he remained in exile for the rest of his life.

2. Charges of unpremeditated homicide, or of instigating another to inflict bodily harm on a third person, or of killing a slave or a resident alien or a foreigner, were tried at the Palladion, At the the ancient shrine of Pallas, east of the city-walls. The Pajiadlon.

punishment for unpremeditated homicide was exile (without confiscation) until such time as the criminal had propitiated the relatives of the person slain, or (failing that) for some definite time. The punishment for instigating a crime was the same as for actually committing it.

At the Del- 3, r1jal~ at the Deiphinion, the shrine of Apollo phinlon. Delphinios, in the same quarter, were reserved for special cases of either accidental or justifiable homicide.

4. If a man already in exile for unpremeditated homicide were accused of premeditated homicide, or of wounding with intent to At kill, provision was made for this rare contingency by per Phrealto. mitting him to approach the shore of Attica and conduct his defence on board a boat, while his judges heard the cause on shore, at a place of pits called Phreatto, near the harbour of Zea. If the accused were found guilty, he incurred the proper penalty; if acquitted, he remained in exile.

5. The court in the precincts of the Prytaneum, to the north of the Acropolis, was only of ceremonial importance. It solemnly heard and condemned undiscovered murderers, and animals or Atthe Pry.

taneum. inanimate objects that had caused the loss of life. i The writ ran against the doer of the deed, and any instrument of death that was found guilty was thrown across the frontier. The trial was held by the four tribe-kings (~wXo~ariXsu1), an archaic survival from before the time of Cleisthenes. (On these five courts see Aristotles Constitution of Athens, c. 57, and Dem. Aristocr. 65-79.)

In all the courts of homicide the president was the archon-basileus, or king-archon, who on these occasions laid aside his crown.

Ephetae. Originally all these courts were under the jurisdiction of an ancient body of judges called the ephetae (l4irai),

whose institution was ascribed to Draco. The transfer of the first of the above courts to the council of the Areopagus is attributed to Solon. In practice the jurisdiction of the ephetae (see also AREOPAGUS) was probably confined to the courts at the Palladion and Delphinion; but even there the rights of this primitive body became obsolete, for trials at the Palladion sometimes came before an ordinary tribunal of soo or 700 jurors (lsocr. c. Callim. 52, 54;

(in important political trials) various multiples 01500, namely, 1000, 1500, 2000 or 2500. To some of these numbers one juror is added; it was probably added to all, to obviate the risk of the votes being exactly equal.

The evidence as to the organization of the jurors in the early part of the 4th century is imperfect. Passages in Aristophanes (Ecclesiazusae, 682688; Plutus, 1166 f.) imply that in 392388 ~c. the total number was divided into ten sections distinguished by the first ten letters of the Greek alphabet, A to K. Every juror, on his first appointment, received a ticket of boxwood (or of bI onze) bearing his name with that of his father and his deme, and with one of the above letters in the upper left-hand corner. Of the bronze tickets many have been sound (see notes on Aristotles Constitution of Athens, c. 63, and fig. 1 In frontispiece, ed. Sandys). These tickets formed part of the machinery for allotting the jurors to the several courts. To guard against the possibility of bribery or other undue influence, the allotment did not take place until immediately before the hearing of the case. Each court contained an equal number of jurors from each of the ten tribes, and thus represented the whole body of the state. The juror, on entering the court assigned him, received a counter (see fig. 3 in frontispiece, u.s.), on presenting which at the end of the day he received his fee. The machinery for carrying out the above arrangements is minutely described at the end of Aristotles Constitution of Athens (for details, cf. Gilbert, 397399, Eng. trans., or Wyse in Whibleys Companion to Greek Studies, 387 f.).

The law-courts gradually superseded most of the ancient judicial functions of the council and the assembly, but the council continued to hold a strict scrutiny (oictuao-ta) of candidates for office or for other privileges, while of the the council itself, as well as all other officials, had to council give account (et5Ovvci) on ceasing to hold office. The and bi council also retained the right to deal with extranssem ~. ordinary crimes against the state. It was open to any citizen to bring such crimes to the knowledge of the council in writing. The technical term for this information, denunciation - or impeachment was eisangelia (ei~ayyeAia). The council could inflict a fine of 5oo drachmae (~2o), or, in important cases, refer the matter either to a law- court, as in the trial of Antiphon (Thuc. viii. 68), or to the ecclesia, as in that of Alcibiades (415 n.c.), and the strategi in command at Arginusae (406; Xen. Hell. i. 7. 19). The term thra-yyeXia was also applied to denunciations brought against persons who wronged the orphan or the widow, or against a public arbitrator who had neglected his duty (Dem. Meidias, 86 f.).

A presentation of criminal information (irpo/3oXi~) might be laid before the assembly with a view to obtaining its preProboi~ liminary sanction for bringing the case before a judicial tribunal. Such was the mode of procedure adopted against persons who had brought malicious, groundless or vexatious accusations, or who had violated the sanctity of certain public festivals. The leading example of the former is the trial of the accusers who prompted the people to put to death the generals who had won the Battle of Arginusae (Xen. Hell. i. 7. 34); and, of the latter, the proceedings of Demosthenes against Meidias.

Legal actions (~Liccu) were classified as private (~&af) or public (lluboiaL). The latter were also described as ypcu/a1 or prosecutions, but some ypa~ctL were called private, C~a;ses, when the state was regarded as only indirectly injured ~ by a wrong done to an individual citizen (Dem. xxi. 47).

A private suit could only be brought by the man directly interested, or, in the case of a slave, a ward or an alien, by the master, guardian or patron respectively; and, if the suit were successful, the sum claimed generally went to the plaintiff. P-iblic actions may be divided into ordinary criminal cases, and offences against the state. As a rule they could be instituted by any person who possessed the franchise, and the penalty was paid to the state. If the prosecutor failed to obtain one-fifth of the votes, he had to pay a fine of rooo drachmae (~4o), and lost the right of ever bringing a similar action.

Lawsuits, whether public or private, were also distinguished as iKaf sarii nvor or lrpr nva, according as the defeated party could or could not be personally punished. Actions (6iyfives) were also distinguished as yfives rtunroi ( to be assessed ), in which the amount of damages had to be determined by the court, because it had not been fixed by law, and ?irLuni-o~ ( not to be assessed ~, in which the damages had not to be determined by the court, because they had already been fixed by law or by special agreement.

Among special kinds of action were ira7oryi~, ~yi~rt1 and t~tr. These could only be employed when the offence was patent and could not be denied. In the first, the person. accused was summarily arrested by the prosecutor and haled into the presence of the proper official. In the second, the accuser took the officer with him to arrest the culprit (Dem. xxii. 26). In the third, he lodged an information with thi official, and left the latter to effect the capture. Iots, a general term for many kinds of legal information, was a form 01 procedure specially directed against those who injured the fiscal interests of the state, and against guardians who neglected the pecuniary interests of their wards. Airo-ypa4n~ was an action for confiscating property in private hands, which was claimed as belonging to the state, the term being derived from the claimants written inventory of the property in question.

The ordinary procedure in all lawsuits, public or private, began with a personal summons (lpoKXflois) of the defendant by the plaintiff accompanied by two Ordinary witnesses (KXflr~pes). If the defendant failed to c*~iure. appear in court, these witnesses gave proof of the summons, and judgment went by default.

The action was begun by presenting a written statement of the case to the magistrate who presided over trials of the class in question. If the statement were accepted, court-fees were paid by both parties in a private action, and by the prosecutor alone in a public action. The magistrate fixed a day for the preliminary investigation (iwepiots), and, whenever several causes were instituted at the same time, he drew lots to determine the order in which they should be taken. Hence the plaintiff was said to have a suit assigned him by lot (Xay~iwav ~ticip), a phrase practically equivalent to obtaining leave to bring an action. At the &IJ&KPWtI the plaintiff and defendant both swore to the truth of their statements. If the defendant raised no formal protest, the trial proceeded in regular course (thOuuda), but he might contend that the suit was inadmissible, and, to prove his point, might bring witnesses to confront those on the side of the plaintiff (&auaprupta), or he might rely on argument without witnesses by means of a written statement traversing that of the plaintiff (Tapaypa4~). The person who submitted the special plea in bar of action naturally spoke first, and, if he gained the verdict, the main suit could not come on, or, at any rate, not in the way proposed or before the same court. A cross-action (&vrt,pa4n~i) might be brought by the defendant, but the verdict did not necessarily affect that of the original suit.

In the preliminary examination copies of the laws or other documents bearing on the case were produced. If any such document were in the hands of a third person, he could be compelled to produce it by an action for that ~ purpose (dr iu4av&,p KaT&o7aau). The depositions were ordinarily made before the presiding officer and were taken down in his presence. If a witness were compelled to be absent, a certified copy of his deposition might be sent (kjuzprvpta). The depositions of slaves were not accepted, unless made under torture, and for receiving such evidence fhe consent of both parties was required. Either party could challenge the other to submit his slaves to the Cb ~test (irp&cX~cn1 dc /3tlo-avov), and, in the event of ~the leliges. challenge being refused, could comment on the fact when the case came before the court. Either party could also challenge the other to take an oath (7rp,~ninc eic ilp,cov), and, if the oath were declined, could similarly comment on the fact.

Mercantile cases had to be decided within the interval of a month; others might be postponed for due cause. If, on the Tb er,ai day of trial, one of the parties was absent, his e representative had to show cause under oath (inrw~~iocrLa); if the other party objected, he did so under oath (iwOu1rwuoo~a). If the plea for delay were refused by the court, and it were the defendant who failed to appear, judgment went by default; in the absence of the plaintiff, the case was given in favor of the defendant.

The official who had conducted the preliminary inquiry also presided at the trial. The proceedings began with a solemn sacrifice. The plea of the plaintiff and the formal reply of the defendant were then read by the clerk. The court was next addressed first by the plaintiff, next by the defendant; in some~ cases there were two speeches on each side. Every litigant was legally required to conduct his own case. The speeches were often composed by professional experts for delivery by the parties to the suit, who were required to speak in person, though one or more unprofessional supporters (n,viryopoL) might subsequently speak in support of the case. The length of the speeches was in many cases limited by law to a fixed time recorded by means of a water-clock (clepsydra). Documents were not regarded as part of the speech, and, while these were being read, the clock was stopped (Goethe fOund a similar custom in force in Venice in October 1786). The witnesses Were never crossexamined, but one of the litigants might formally interrogate the other. The case for the defence was sometimes finally supported by pathetic appeals on the part of relatives and friends.

When the speeches were over, the votes were taken. In the 5th century mussel-shells (~oipIvcu) were used for the purpose. Each of the jurors received a shell, which he placed in one of the two urns, in that to the front if he voted for acquittal; in that to the back if he voted for condemnation. If a second vote had to be taken to determine the amount of the penalty, wax tablets were used, on which the juror drew a long line, if he gave the heavy penalty demanded by the plaintiff; a short one, if he decided in favor of the lighter penalty proposed by the defendant.

In the 4th century the mussel-shells were replaced by disks of bronze. Each disk (inscribed with the words IHIO~ i~HMOIA) was about tin, in diameter, with a short tube running through the centre. This tube was either perforated or closed (see figs. 6 and 7 in frontispiece to Aristotles Constitution of Athens, ed. Sandys). One of each kind was given to every juror, who was required to use the perforated or the closed disk, according as he voted for the plaintiff or for the defendant. On the platform there were two urns, one of bronze and one of wood. The juror placed in the hollow of his hand the disk that he proposed to use, and closed his fingers on the extremity of the tube, so that no one could see whether it were a perforated disk or not, and then deposited it in the bronze urn, and (with the same precaution to ensure secrecy) dropped the unused disk into the wooden urn. The votes were sorted by persons appointed by lot, and counted by the president of the court, and the result announced by the herald. For any second vote the same procedure was adopted (Aristotle, u.s., c. 68 of Kenyons ~erlin text).

Pecuniary penalties were inflicted both in public and in private suits; personal penalties, in public suits only. Personal , ,~, penalties included sentences of death or exile, or ena es. different degrees of disfranchisement (rfuta) with or without confiscation. Imprisonment before trial was common, and persons muicted in penalties might be imprisoned until the penalties were paid, but imprisonment was never inflicted as the sole penalty after conviction. Foreigners alone could be sold into slavery. Sentences of death were carried out under the supervision of the board of police called the Eleven. In ancient times a person condemned was hurled into a deep pit (the barathrum) in a north-western suburb of Athens. In later times he was compelled to drink the fatal draught of hemlock. Common malef actors were beaten to death with clubs. Fines were collected and confiscated property sold by special officials, called lrpiiKropes and 7rwX?7Ta1 respectively. In private suits the sentence was executed by the state if the latter had a share in any fine imposed, or if imprisonment were part of the penalty. Otherwise, the execution of the sentence was left to the plaintiff, who had the right of distraint, or, if this failed, could bring an action of ejectment (L,c,7 i~ofry~s).

From the verdict of the heliaea there was no appeal. But, if judgment had been given by default, the person condemned might bring an action to prove that he was not responsible for such default, TI~P ~p,~jsov (sc. ~tInlv) &vriXayxitveiv. The corresponding term for challenging the award of an arbitrator was r,~v u1~ oi~ra~ thrtXaYX&veLv. He might also bring an action for false evidence (Lic~ i/ievouapruptfiv) against his opponents witnesses, and, on their conviction, have the sentence annulled. This denunciation of false evidence was technically called &hTKi7t,ttS and ~irLcrK~77rrecrOo.L.

The large number of the jurors made bribery difficult, but, as was first proved by Anytus (in 409), not impossible. It also diminished the feeling of personal responsibility, while Charadcr it increased the influence of political motives. In of the addressing such a court, the litigants were not above Athenian appealing to the personal interests of the general tribunals. public. We have a striking example of this in the terms in which Lysias makes one of his clients close a speech in prosecution of certain retail corn-dealers who have incurred the penalty of death by buying more than 75 bushels of wheat at one time: If you condemn these persons, you will be doing what is right, and will pay less for the purchase of your corn; if you acquit them, you will pay more (xxii. 22).

Speakers were also tempted to take advantage of the popular ignorance by misinterpreting the enactments of the law, and the jurors could look for no aid from the officials who formally presided over the courts. The latter were not necessarily experts, for they owed their own original appointment to the caprice of the lot. Almost the only officials specially elected as experts were the strategi, and these presided only in their own courts. Again, there was every temptation for the informer to propose the confiscation of the property of a wealthy citizen, who would naturally prefer paying blackmail to running the risk of having his case tried before a large tribunal which was under every temptation to decide in the interests of the treasury. In conclusion we may quote the opinions on the judicial system of Athens which have been expressed by two eminent classical scholars and English lawyers.

A translator of Aristophanes, Mr B. B. Rogers, records his opinion that it would be difficult to devise a judicial system less adapted for the due administration of justice (Preface to Wasps, xxxv. f.), while a translator of Demosthenes, Mr C. R. Kennedy, observes that the Athenian jurors were persons of no legal education or learning; taken at haphazard from the whole body of citizens, and mostly belonging to the lowest and poorest class. On the other hand, the Athenians were naturally the quickest and cleverest people in the world. Their wits were sharpened by the habit ... of taking an active part in important debates, and hearing the most splendid orators. There was so much litigation at Athens that they were constantly either engaged as jurors, or present as spectators in courts of law (Private Orations, p. 361).

AuTHoRITIEs.!. Greek Law. B. W. Leist, Grco-italische Rechtsgeschichte (Jena, 1884); L. Mitteis, Reichsrecht und Volksrecht in den stlichen Provinzen des rmischen Kaiserreichs, mit Beitragen zur Kenntnis des griechischen Rechis (Leipzig, 1891); J. H. Lipsius, Von der Bedeutung des griechischen Rechts (Leipzig, 1893); G. Gilbert, Zur Entwickelungsgeschichte des . . . griechischen Rechtes in Jalirb. fr ki. Philologie (Leipzig, 1896); H. J. Hitzig, Die Bedeutung des altgriechischen Rechtes fur die vergleichende Rechtswissenscha,ft (Stuttgart, 1906); R. Hirzel, Themis, Dike und Verwandtes (Leipzig, 1907); J. J. Thonissen, Le Droit criminel de la Grce llgendaire, followed by Le Droit penal de la rpublique athnienne (Brussels, 1875).

2. Attic Law. (a) Editions of Greek texts: I. B. Tlfv, Corpus juris Attici (Pest and Leipzig, 1868); Aristotles Constitution of Athens, ed. Kenyon (London, 1891, &c., and esp. ed. 4, Berlin, 1903); ed. 4, Blass (Leipzig, 1903); text with critical and explanatory notes, ed. Sandys (London, 1893); Lysias, ed. Frohberger (Leipzig, i866 1871); Isaeus, ed. Wyse (Cambridge, 904); Dernosthenes, Private Orations, ed. Paley and Sandys, ed. 3 (Cambridge, 1896-1898); Against Midias, ed. Goodwin (Cambridge, 1906); Dareste, Haussoullier, Th. Reinach, Inscr. juridiques grecques (Paris, 1891-1904).

(b) Modern treatises: K. F. Hermann, De vestigiis institulorum

writers, written in Greek or French, he strove to awake the interest of his countrymen in the past glories of their race or administered to them sage counsels, at the same time addressing ardent appeals to civilized Europe on their behalf. The great importance of Coraes, however, lies in the fact that he was practically the founder of the modern literary language.

In contemporary Greek literature two distinct forms of the modern language present themselvesthe vernacular (i~

The Ka8oj2fXoUu~Pfl) and the purified (s~ KaOapeiJ000- a). modern The former is the oral language, spoken by the whole literary Greek world, with local dialectic variations; the language, latter is based on the Greek of the Hellenistic writers, modified, but not essentially altered, in successive ages by the popular speech. At the time of the War of Independence the enthusiasm of the Greeks and the Philhellenes was fired by the memory of an illustrious past, and at its close a classical reaction followed: the ancient nomenclature was introduced in every department of the new state, towns and districts received their former names, and children were christened after Greek heroes and philosophers instead of the Christian saints. In the literary revival which attended the national movement, two schools of writers made their appearancethe purists, who, rejecting the spoken idiom as degenerate and corrupt, aimed at the restoration of the classical language, and the vulgarists, who regarded the vernacular or Romaic as the genuine and legitimate representative of the ancient tongue. A controversy which had existed in former times was thus revived, with the result that a state of confusion still prevails in the national literature. The classical scholar who is as yet unacquainted with modern Greek will find, in the pages of an ordinary periodical or newspaper, specimens of the conventional literary language. which he can read with ease side by side with poems or even prose in the vernacular which he will be altogether unable to interpret.

The vernacular or-oral language is never taught, but is universally spoken. It has been evolved from the ancient language by a natural and regular process, similar to that which Reforms has produced the Romance languages from the Latin, ~ora~s. or the Russian, Bulgarian and Servian from the old Slavonic. It has developed on parallel lines with the modern European languages, and in obedience to the same laws; like them, it might have grown into a literary language had any great writers arisen in the middle ages to do for it what Dante and his successors of the ~recento did for Italian. But the effort to adapt it to the requirements of modern literature could hardly prove successful. In the first place, the national sentiment of the Greeks prompts them to imitate the classical writers, and so far as possible to appropriate their diction. The beauty and dignity of the ancient tongue possesses such an attraction for cultivated writers that they are led insensibly to adopt its forms and borrow from its wealth of phrase and idiom. In the next place, a certain literary tradition and usage has already been formed which cannot easily be broken down. For more than half a century the generally accepted written language, half modern half ancient, has been in use in the schools, the university, the parliament, the state departments and the pulpit, and its influence upon the speech of the more educated classes is already noticeable. It largely owes its present form though a fixed standard is still lackingto the influence and teaching of Coras. As in the time of the decadence a &iLXeKTOI stood midway between the classical language and the popular speech, so at the beginning of the 19th century there existed a common literary dialect, largely influenced by the vernacular, but retaining the characteristics of the old Hellenistic, from which it was derived by an unbroken literary tradition. This written language Coras took as the basis of his reforms, purging it of foreign elements, preserving its classical remnants and enlarging its vocabulary with words borrowed from the ancient lexicon or, in case of need, invented in accordance with a fixed principle. He thus adopted a middle course, discountenancing alike the pedantry of the purists and the over-confident optimism of the vulgarists, who found in the uncouth popular speech all the material for a langue savante. The language which he thus endeavoured to shape and reconstruct is, of course, conventional and artificial. In course of time it will probably tend to approach the vernacular, while the latter will gradually be modified by the spread of education. The spoken and written languages, however, will always be separated by a wide interval.

Many of the best poets of modern Greece have written in the vernacular, which is best adapted for the natural and spontaneous expression of the feelings. Dionysios Solomos (1798 Poeti al 1857), the greatest of them all, employed the dialect writeers of the lonian Islands. Of his lyrics, which are full of in the poetic fire and inspiration, the most celebrated is his Ode to Liberty. Other poets, of what may be cular. described as the Ionic school, such as Andreas Kalvos (1796 1869), Julius Typaldos (1814-1883), John Zampelios (1787-1856), and Gerasimos Markoras (b. 1826), followed his example in using the Heptanesian dialect. On the other hand, Georgios Terzetes (1806-1874), Aristotle Valaorites (1824-1879) and Gerasimos Mavrogiannes, though natives of the lonian Islands, adopted in their lyrics the language of the Klephtic ballads in other words, the vernacular of the Pindus range and the mountainous district of Epirus. This dialect had at least the advantage of being generally current throughout the mainland, while it derived distinction from the heroic exploits of the champions of Greek liberty. The poems of Valaorites, which are characterized by vivid imagination and grace of style, have made a deep impression on the nation. Other poets who largely employed the Epirotic dialect and drew their inspiration from the Klephtic songs were John Vilaras (1771-1823), George Zalokostas (1 8051857) in his lyric pieces, and Theodore Aphentoules, a Cretan (d. 1893). With the poems of this group may be classed those of Demetrius Bikelas (b. 1835). The popular language has been generally adopted by the younger generation of poets, among whom may be mentioned Aristomenes Probelegios (b. 1850), George Bizyenos (1853-1896), George Drosines, Kostes Palamas (b. 1859), John Polmes, Argyres Ephthaliotes, and Jacob Polylas (d. 1896).

Contemporary with the first-mentioned or Ionic group, there existed at Constantinople a school of poets who wrote in the accepted literary language, and whose writings serve as models for the later group which gathered at Athens after the emancipation of Greece. The literary in the traditions founded by Alexander Rizos Rhangabes conven(1810-1892) and the brothers Alexander and Panagiotis tional language.

Soutzos (1803-1863 and 1800-1868), who belonged to Phanariot families, were niaintained in Athens by Spiridion Basiliades (1843-1874) Angelos Viachos (b. 1838), John Karasoutzas (1824-1873), Demetrios Paparrhegopoulos (1843-1873), and Achilles Paraschos (b. 1838). The last, a poet of fine feeling, has also employed the popular language. In general the practice of versification in the conventional literary language has declined, though sedulously encouraged by the university of Athens, and fostered by annual poetic competitions with prizes provided by patriotic citizens. Greek lyric poetry during the first half of the century was mainly inspired by the patriotic sentiment aroused by the struggle for independence, but in the present generation it often shows a tendency towards the philosophic and contemplative mood under the influence of Western models.

There has been an abundant production of dramatic literature in recent years. In succession to Alexander Rhangabes, John Zampelios and the two Soutzos, who belong to the past generation, Kleon Rhangabes, Angelos Viachos, DramaDemetrios Koromelas, Basiliades and Bernadakes trans -are the most prominent among modern dramatic iators 8nd writers. Numerous translations of foreign master- satirists. pieces have appeared, among which the metrical versions of Romeo and Juliet, Othello, King Lear, Hamlet, Macbeth and The Merchant of Venice, by Demetrios Bikelas, deserve mention as examples of artistic excellence. Goethes Faust has been rendered into verse by Probelegios, and Hamlet, Antony and Cleopatra, Coriolanus and Julius Caesar, into prose by Damiroles.

Among recent satirists, George Soures (b. 1853) occupies a unique position. He reviews social and political events in the Pw~zj~o~, a witty little newspaper written entirely in verse, which is read with delight by all classes of the population.

Almost all the prose writers have employed the literary language. In historical research the Greeks continue to display much activity and erudition, but no great work Rc~:t comparable to Spiridion Trikoupiss History of Me ~wmers. Revolution has appeared in the present generation. A history of the Greek nation from the earliest times to the present day, by Spiridion Lampros, and a general history of the 19th century by Karolides, have recently been published. The valuable Mvnuela of Sathas, the ueX~rat Bv~civi-iv~r i.sropias of Spiridion Zampelios and Mavrogianness History of the lonian Islands deserve special mention, as well as the essays of Bikelas, which treat of the Byzantine and modern epochs of Greek history. Some of the last-named were translated into English by the late marquis of Bute. Among the writers on jurisprudence are Peter Paparrhegopoulos, Kalligas, Basileios Oekonomedes and Nikolaos Saripolos. Brailas-Armenes and John Skaltzounes, the latter an opponent of Darwin, have written philosophical works. The Ecclesiastical History of Diomedes Kyriakos and the Theological Treatises of Archbishop Latas should be noted. The best-known writers of philological works are Constantine Kontos, a strong advocate of literary purism, George Hatzidakes, Theodore Papademetrakopoulos and John Psichari; in archaeology, Stephen Koumanoudes, Panagiotes Kavvadias and Christos Tsountas have won a recognized position among scholars. John Svoronos is a high authority on numismatics. The works of John Hatzidakes on mathematics, Anast. Christomanos on chemistry, and Demetrios Aeginetes on astronomy are well known.

The earlier works of fiction, written in the period succeeding the emancipation of Greece, were much affected by foreign Fiction, influence. Modern Greece has not produced any great novelist. The Kp~rocoL ~ycijzot of Spiridion Zampelios, the scene of which is laid in Crete, and the Thanos Blechas of Kal,ligas are interesting, the former for accuracy of historical detail, the latter as a picture of peasant life in the mountains of Greece. Original novel writing has not been much cultivated, but translations of foreign romances abound. In later times the short story has come into vogue through the example of D. Bikelas, whose tales have acquired great popularity; one of them, Loukis Laras, has been translated into many languages. The example of Bikelas has been followed by Drosines Karkavitzas, Ephthaliotis, Xenopoulos and many others. -

The most distinguished of the writers who adhere to the vernacular in prose is John Psichari, professor of the cole des Prose }1/8autes Etudes in Paris. He is the recognized leader of writers the vulgarists. Among the best known of his works In the are To ra~euilL uov, a narrative of a journey in Greek ~ lands, Tvapo roE Ftavvtpq, H ZoOXea, and 0

The tales of Karkavitzas and Ephthaliotis are also in the vernacular. Among the younger of M. Psicharis followers is M. Paili, who has recently published a translation of the Iliad. Owing to the limited resources of the popular language, the writers of this school are sometimes compelled to employ strange and little-known words borrowed from the various dialects. The vernacular has never been adopted by writers on scientific subjects, owing to its inherent unsuitability and the incongruity arising from the introduction of technical terms derived from the ancient language. Notwithstanding the zeal of its adherents, it seems unlikely to maintain its place in literature outside tj2e domain of poetry; nor can any other result be expected, unless its advocates succeed ~u reforming the system of public instruction in Greece.

Many periodicals are published at Athens, among which may be mentioned the Athena, edited by Constantine Kontos, the Eihnik A gage, a continuation of the old Hestia, the Harmonia and the z~t r)taoxs rfis- irat&&iv, an educational review. The Parnassos, the Archaeological Society and other learned bodies issue annual or quarterly reports. The Greek journals are both numerous and widely read. They contain much clever writing, which is often marred by inaccuracy and a deficient sense of responsibility. Their ~~ tendency to exaggerated patriotic sentiment sometimes borders on the ludicrous. For many years the Nea Hem&a of Trieste exerted a considerable influence over the Greek world, owing to the able political reviews of its editor, Anastasios Byzantios (d. 1898), a publicist of remarkable insight and judgment.

AuTHoRITfEs.Constantine Sathas,No~XAi1vuol cbiXoXoyta (Athens, 1868); D. Bikelas, Hspi psoXXilvLs4ic daAoXoyiai ,cipwv(London, 1871), reprinted in ~~uiMff1 ,cai &vauvIfqsis(Athens, 1893); J. S. Blackie, Horae Hellenicae (London, 1874); R. Nicolai, Geschichte dee neugriechzschen Literatur (Leipzig, 1876); A. R. RhangabO, Histoire luteraire de la Grce moderne (Paris, 1877); C. Gidel, Etudes sur la littCrature grecque moderne (Paris, 1878); E. Legrand, Bibliothque grecque vulgaire (vol. i., Paris, I 880); J. Lamber, Potes grecs contern porains (Paris, 1881); Kontos, FXwo-asicai rrapar-qpilmis (Athens, 1882); Rhangab and Sanders, Geschichte der neugriechischen Lf teratur von ihren Anfangen bis auf die neueste Zeit (Leipzig,1885);

J. Psichari, Essais de grammaire historique no-grecque (2 vols., Paris, 1886 and 1889); Etudes de philologie no-grecque (Paris, 1892); F. Blass, Die Aussprache des Griechiscljen (3rd ed., Berlin, 1888); Papademetrakopoulos, B6aavos ~Xiivoc8c irpo4ophs (Athens.

1889); M. Konstantinides, Neo-hellenica (Dialogues in Modern Greek, with Appendix on the Cypriot Dialect) (London, 1892); RhoIdes, Ta EThwXa. r~w-et,ifl u~Xirn (Athens, 1893); Polites, MsXraI ir~pi roi ~9iov Kill r,~jc yXc~,ao,1c EXX~visoI3 Xov (2 vols., Athens, 1899).

For the Klephtic ballads and folk-songs: C. Fauriel, Chants populaires de la Grce moderne (Paris, 1824, 1826); Passow, Populana carmina Graeciae recenhioris (Leipzig, 1860); von Hahn, Griechische mid albanesische Marchen (Leipzig, 1864); T4apbof 1, Atcworp--yove5a (2nd ed.,Athens, 1868); E. Legrand, Recueil de chansons populaires grecques (Paris, I874); Recueil de conies populaires grecs (Paris, 1881); Paul de Lagarde, Neugriechisches ,aus Kleinasien (GOttingen, 1886); A. Jannaris, Auuara Kpi1rixi. (Kretas Volkslieder) (Leipzig, 1876); A. Sakellariou, Ta Kvirpiwcii (Athens, 1891); Zw-ypa~sIos Ayi,v, published by the EX)apocbi q~iXoXoyucc ui~XXoyoc (Constantinople, 1891). Translations: L. Garnett, Greek Folksongs from the Turkish Provinces of Greece (London, 1885); E. M. Geldart, Folklore of Modern Greece (London, 1884). Lexicons:

A. N. Jannaris, A Concise Dictionary of the English and Modern Greek Languages (English-Greek) (London, 1895); Byzantios (Skarlatos D.), Asfucc~v i-81 EX)opudis ~yXdeso-,1s (Athens, 1895); A. Sakellario, A~fucbv ri~r EXXnvudls yX&~1rcn7s (5th ed., Athens, 1898); S. Koumanoudes,~uPa7ca-y~ sCow X~fiwv (Athens, 1900). Grammars:

Mitsotakes, Praktische Grammatik der neugniechischen .Schrift- 1ul Urn gangssprache (Stuttgart, 1891); M. Gardner, A Practical Modern Greek Grammar (London, 1892); G. N. Hatzidakes, Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik (Leipzig, 1892); E. Vincent and T. G. Dickson, Handbook to Modern Greek (London, 1893); A. Thumb, Handbuch der neugriechischen Volkssprache (Strassburg, 1895);

C. Wied, Die Kunsi der neugriechischen Volkssprache durch Selbstunterricht schnell und leicht zu lernen (2nd ed., undated, Vienna); A. N. Jannaris, Historical Greek Grammar (London, 1897). (J. D. B.)

*Adopted from "The 1911 Edition Encylcopedia"

Law Offices of Savvas Zannetos

Igumenu Gavriil 103-105

74100 Rethimno, Crete

Greece

Tel: (30) 28310-26-258

Fax: (30) 28310-52-263

Please Contact Us today via-

Email: zannetos@creteattorney.com