EPANGE´LIA
EPANGE´LIA (
ἐπαγγελία). 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.
Tim. § 32,
δοκιμασίαν
ἐπαγγειλάτω Ἀθηναίων ὁ βουλόμενος ὁ̂ς ἔξεστιν:
§ § 64, 81,
ἐπαγγελίαν
ἐπαγγέλλειν): 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
ἀτιμία followed (Dem.
de Fals.
Leq. p. 432.284; p. 423.257 ; Aeschin. ib. 134, etc.).
Some writers have confounded the
ἐπαγγελία
with
δοκιμασία, and considered the two
words as synonyms; but from the above it is evident that the
δοκιμασία is the actual trial, while the
ἐπαγγελία is only the threat to
subject a man to the
δοκιμασία
(Schömann,
Assemblies, p. 241, n. 36). Harpocration
and Suidas do not sufficiently distinguish between
ἐπαγγελία and
ἔνδειξις:
the latter is an accusation against persons who, though they had been
declared
ἄτιμοι, or had become
ἄτιμοι
ipso jure, 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
ἀτιμία as punishment: e. g. if a man
convicted of
κάκωσις γονέων, and therefore
ipso jure
ἄτιμος, 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, but for
which he was not yet convicted, had to be proceeded against by way of
ἐπαγγελία δοκιμασίας. Aeschines
(
c. Tim. § 28 if.) mentions four classes of
crimes which justified “denunciation:”
κάκωσις γονέων, ἀστρατεία or throwing
away the shield,
ἑταίρησις, and wasting
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. (
Att. Process, 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.
[
L.S] [
H.H]