1. Any Athenian citizen (probably with the exception of near relatives of the
defendant, Isae. Menecl.
§ 33), when called upon to
appear as a witness in a court of justice, was obliged by law to obey the
summons, unless he could establish by oath that he was unacquainted with the
case in question (Pollux, 8.55, εἰ φάσκοιεν μὴ
ἐπίστασθαι ἐφ᾽ ἃ ἐκαλοῦντο
μαρτυρεῖν ἢ ἐξόμνυσθαι,
Dem. de Fals. Leg.
p. 396.176, etc.; Att. Process,
ed. Lipsius, p. 881, n. 323).
This oath was called ἐξωμοσία.
those who refused to obey the summons without being able to take this oath,
a δίκη βλάβης,
or, if they had promised to
give evidence, a δίκη λιπομαρτυρίου,
be brought by the parties who thought themselves injured by their having
withheld their evidence, the fine going to the plaintiffs; or they were
specially summoned (κλητεύειν,
p. 1354.28, ἀναγκάσω
μαρτυρεῖν ἢ ἐξόμνυσθαι κατὰ τὸν νόμον, ἢ κλητεύσω
etc.) and threatened with the imposition of a fine of
1000 drachmas, to be paid to the state (Aeschin. Tim.
§ 46; Att. Process,
ed. Lipsius, p. 494 ff.).
p. 97) and Lipsius (Att.
p. 909, n. 409) take ἐξόμνυσθαι
in Theophr. Char.
6 (Jebb 16) in the
sense of ὑπόμνυσθαι,
Jebb (p. 230) in that
of “making oath (as witness) that he knows nothing of the
2. As a rule, candidates for an office (ἀρχὴ
in its proper sense), whether they were to be chosen by
lot (ἀρχαὶ κληρωταί
) or by show of hands
), gave in their names
to the archons (Isocr. de Permut.
§ 150; [Lys.]
§ 4; Lys. c. Phil.
§ 33). Suid. s. v. ληξιαρχικόν
(and Schol. Aeschin. c. Tim.
§ 18) says, καὶ ἐκ ἐκείνων τῶν γραμματείων
) κληροῦσι τ̀ας ἀρχάς,
wrongly connecting the name ληξιαρχικὸν
(see Boeckh, Kl. Schriften,
154, n. 1); but when Plutarch (Plut. Phoc. 8
says of Phocion that he served more frequently as στρατηγὸς
than any one in his time, or before his time had
done οὐ παραγγέλλων οὐδὲ μετιών,
evident that this was not invariably the rule (cf. also Xen. Hell. 1.4
, οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι στρατηγοὺς εἵλοντο
Ἀλκιβιάδην μὲν φεύγοντα,
etc.). A person chosen in such a
way, or appointed to [p. 1.815]
serve as ambassador or in any
other public capacity, was at liberty to decline the office, if he could
take an oath, either himself or by proxy (δι᾽
Pollux, 8.55; cf. Dem. de Fats. Leg.
p. 379.124, and Aeschin. F. L.
§ 95, whence we learn
that an oath of this kind had to be made before the assembly), that the
state of his health or other circumstances rendered it impossible for him to
fulfil the duties connected with it (ἐξόμνυσθαι τὴν
πρεσβείαν, τὰς ἀρχάς;
cf. Arist. Pol.
6.10 S. = 4.13 Bk. περὶ δὲ τὰς
ἀρχὰς τὸ τοῖς μὲν ἔχουσι τίμημα μὴ ἐξεῖναι ἐξόμνυσθαι,
τοῖς δ᾽ἀπόροις ἐξεῖναι
: the arrogant man in Theophr.
24 (Jebb 4) assigns the vague reason that he is
“too busy” ). This oath was likewise called ἐξωμοσία
(Harp. s.v. Schol. Aristoph. Eccl. 1018
, n.; Schol.
Aeschin. F. L.
§ 97). Hudtwalcker,
p. 97, calls it wrongly ὑπωμοσία.
329; Hermann, Gr. Staatsalt.
§ § 123, 148.)
is also used according to
Suidas, s. v. (=Schol. Aristoph. Eccl.
), in the sense of objections raised by the defendant to the
admissibility of the plaintiff's action (μὴ δεῖν
ἐσάγεσθαι δίκην, εῖτα καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν δι᾽ ἣν οὐκ εἰσαγώγιμος
etc.), the same proceeding which is called ἀντιγραφὴ
in Lys. c. Pancl.
§ § 5, 10, and παραγραφὴ
since the law of Archinus, passed soon after the expulsion of the Thirty
Tyrants (Isocr. c. Callim.
§ 2). Suidas' explanation
probably refers to Aristoph. Eccl.
, and there, according to Platner (Process u.
i. p. 162 n.), ἐξωμοσία
used in the sense of declining an office (2). (Att. Process,
ed. Lipsius, p. 853 ff.) [L.S
. (2.) The exomosia
of those enrolled by the καταλογεῖς
horsemen is mentioned in 100.49: οὗτοι
(οἱ ἵππαρχοι καὶ φύλαρχοι
) παραλαβόντες εἰσφέρουσι τ[ὸν] κατάλογον εἰς τῆν
βουλὴν καὶ τὸν πίνακα ἀνοίξαντες, ἐν ᾧ κατασεσημασμένα τὰ
ὀνόματα τῶν ἱππέων ἐστί, τοὺς μὲν ἐξομνυμένους τῶν πρότερον
ἐγγεργαμμένων μὴ δυνατοὺς εἶναι τοῖς σώμασιν ἱππεύειν
ἐξαλείφουσι, τοὺς δὲ κατειλεγμένους [κ]αλοῦσι, κἂν μέν τις
ἐξομόσηται μὴ δύνασθαι τῷ σώματι ἱππεύειν ἢ τῄ οὐσίᾳ