previous next


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 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 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]

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: