[74]
Such was one form of disfranchisement. According to a second, delinquents lost all personal rights, but retained possession of their property. This class included all persons convicted of theft or of accepting bribes—it was laid down that both they and their descendants should lose their personal rights. Similarly, all who deserted on the field of battle, who were found guilty of evasion of military service, of cowardice, or of withholding a ship from action,1 all who threw away their shields, or were thrice convicted of giving perjured evidence or of falsely endorsing a summons,2 or who were found guilty of maltreating their parents, were deprived of their personal rights, while retaining possession of their property.
1 When Trierarchs.
2 Whenever a plaintiff had to serve a summons in person, the law required that he should do so in the presence of witnesses. The names of these witnesses were entered on the writ. If the plaintiff secured the witnesses' names without serving the summons and so won the case by default, the defendant had the right to bring a γραφὴ ψευδοκλητείας against the witnesses （ κλητῆρες） concerned.
Andocides. Minor Attic Orators in two volumes 1, Antiphon Andocides, with an English translation by K. J. Maidment, M.A. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1968.
The Annenberg CPB/Project provided support for entering this text.
Purchase a copy of this text (not necessarily the same edition) from Amazon.com
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.