). This action must be distinguished from
the γραφὴ κλοπῆς ἱερῶν χρημάτων.
latter was directed against peculation rather than theft of sacred money, to
which a fine (the tenfold amount, Dem. c. Timocr.
p. 740.127) was awarded (Antiph. Tetral.
i. a, § 6,
ἱερῶν κλοπῆς δυοῖν ταλάντοιν
whence we learn that only a fine could be awarded; Dem. de F.
p. 435.293); the former was directed against the offence of
robbery from a temple. Euxitheus charges his opponents with having stolen
) the weapons which he
had dedicated to Athene (Dem. c. Eubul.
p. 1318.64). (See
Syrian. ad Hermog.
iv. p. 497 Walz: οἷον ὁ φεύγων ἱεροσυλίας γραφὴν ἐρεῖ, ὡς ἱερόσυλός ἐστιν
ὁ φιάλας ἐξ ἱερῶν ἀφαιρούμενος, ὁ στεφάνους, ὁ θυμιατήρια,
καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα εἰδικῶς ὀνομάζων.
) The offender upon
conviction was invariably put to death, whether the value of the thing
stolen was great or small (Isocr. c. Lochit.
Lyc. c. Leocr.
§ 65; Xen.
), his property
confiscated, and his body denied burial within Attic territory (Xen. Hell. 1.7
; Diod. 16.28
), sacrilege being
considered one of the most heinous crimes next to murder and high treason
(Antiph. de caed. Herod.
§ 10). Demosthenes calls
Androtion and his colleagues ἱερόσυλοι
p. 738.120 ff.); yet they had not committed
sacrilege: their offence was, not to have paid the tithe of Athena and the
fiftieths of the other gods (e. g. their share of the sum realised by the
sale of the cargo of the Persian ship captured by Androtion, etc.); hence
when the time for payment had lapsed, the regulations with regard to debtors
came into force.
Meier concluded from Cicero (de Divin.
that the Areiopagus tried cases of ἱεροσυλία
: yet from the life of Sophocles, where Hieronymus is
quoted as authority, we learn that the case in question was laid before the
popular assembly (ἐμήνυσε--τῷ δήμῳ
It is evident from Xen. Hell. 1.7
, and Lys. pro Call.,
sacrilege was tried before a heliastic court; as Jebb says (Att.
i. p. 287), “In the view of sacrilege taken by Attic law
its aspect as a robbery seems to have been more prominent than its
aspect as an impiety.” As regards the particular sacrilege with
which Callias was charged, he conjectures from the allusion τῷ δημοσίῳ βοηθοῦντες
( § 4),
“that it was connected with the sacred treasury on the Acropolis.
Kallias may have had some employment under the stewards of the sacred
fund which gave him access to the inner chamber of the Parthenon, and
may have been accused of profiting by that opportunity to commit a
theft.” Slaves were allowed upon that occasion to appear as
informers against their master--a resident alien--and anticipated their
emancipation in the event of his conviction. The argument to [Dem.]
i. mentions an ἀπαγωγὴ
of a sacrilegious person to the πρυτάϝεις
: but Lipsius doubts the correctness of
this statement. (Att. Process,
ed. Lipsius, pp. 139, 376,