). If a citizen of Athens had incurred ἀτιμία,
the privilege of taking part or
speaking in the public assembly was forfeited [ATIMIA
]. But as it sometimes might happen that a
person, though not formally declared ἄτιμος,
had committed such crimes as would, on accusation, draw
upon him this punishment, it was of course desirable that such individuals,
like real ἄτιμοι,
should be excluded from
the exercise of the rights of citizens. Whenever, therefore, such a person
ventured to speak in the assembly, any Athenian citizen had the right to
come forward in the assembly itself, and demand of him to establish his
right to speak by a trial or examination of his conduct (Aeschin. c.
§ 32, δοκιμασίαν
ἐπαγγειλάτω Ἀθηναίων ὁ βουλόμενος ὁ̂ς ἔξεστιν
§ § 64, 81, ἐπαγγελίαν
): but it is not probable that the impeached
individual [p. 1.739]
was thereby compelled to desist from
speaking until his case was decided. The accuser had to lay his charge in
writing (Aeschin. c. Tim.
§ § 119, 154;
Dem. c. Androt.
p. 600.23) before the thesmothetae, who
brought such cases to trial in the courts of law (Aeschin. ib. §
45, etc.); and if the defendant was convicted, a formal declaration of
followed (Dem. de Fals.
p. 432.284; p. 423.257 ; Aeschin. ib. 134, etc.).
Some writers have confounded the ἐπαγγελία
and considered the two
words as synonyms; but from the above it is evident that the δοκιμασία
is the actual trial, while the
is only the threat to
subject a man to the δοκιμασία
p. 241, n. 36). Harpocration
and Suidas do not sufficiently distinguish between ἐπαγγελία
the latter is an accusation against persons who, though they had been
or had become ἄτιμοι
nevertheless ventured to assume the
rights of citizens in the public assembly; whereas ἐπαγγελία
applied only to those who had not yet been
convicted of the crime laid to their charge, which would draw upon them
as punishment: e. g. if a man
convicted of κάκωσις γονέων,
took part or spoke in the popular
assembly, he was proceeded against by way of ἔδειξις
: whilst he who had committed a crime which laid him
open to a γραφὴ κακώσεως γονέων,
which he was not yet convicted, had to be proceeded against by way of
§ 28 if.) mentions four classes of
crimes which justified “denunciation:”
κάκωσις γονέων, ἀστρατεία
away the shield, ἑταίρησις,
one's patrimony; Pollux (8.45) omits the 2nd class, but adds ἢ ἄλλως κακῶς βεβιωκότες,
whilst some of
the grammarians confine it to those guilty of ἑταίρησις.
ed. Lipsius, pp.
248-253.) Wachsmuth (Hell. Alterth.
ii. p. 294) seems to be
inclined to consider the ῥητορικὴ γραφὴ
as connected or identical with the ἐπαγγελία.