as its etymology implies, at the rate of one obolus for a drachma, or one in
six ([Dem.] c. Everg. et Mnes.
p. 1158.64, cf. Harp. s.v.
Pollux, 8.39, 48); on the assessment (τίμημα
: hence called προστίμημα,
Harp. s.v. and Lex. Rh. Cant.
) was payable to his successful
opponent by the litigant who failed to obtain the votes of one-fifth of the
dicasts in a case of φάσις
and in δίκαι χρηματικαὶ
255, etc.; Schol. Plat. Legg.
p. 921 D; cf. Boeckh, Sthh.
3 i. p. 165
f.). As regards φάσις,
we learn from
Theophrastus π. νόμων,
8 (Journ. of Phil.
vi. p. 2),
that here, as in public accusations in general (but see EISANGELIA
), a fine of 1000
drachmas ([Dem.] c. Theocr.
p. 1323.6) and partial ἀτιμία
were inflicted: hence Boeckh
3 i. p. 423) suggests that
probably the two fines together were inflicted on the unsuccessful
plaintiff; whilst Meier is of opinion, that when the (φάσις
was of a purely public nature, the plaintiff had to
pay 1000 drachmas; when, however, a private person was injured, and laid a
to satisfy his private interests,
he became liable to the epobelia. Lipsius (Att. Process,
301 ff.; cf. Fränkel, Boeckh's Sthh.
3 ii. App. p. 81) thinks that Pollux confounded these two ways of
punishment [p. 1.753]
for frivolous prosecutions. The term
is vague; we know
from other sources that the plaintiff was liable to this penalty in
mercantile causes (Dem. c. Dionysod.
p. 1284.4, etc.;
p. 637), in charges arising from
non-fulfilment of contract (Aeschin. c. Tim.
and in causes against guardians (Dem. c. Aphob.
834.67). Pollux (8.39) says that the litigant who did not get one-fifth of
the votes (δ αἱρεθείς
), whether plaintiff
or defendant, was liable to this penalty, but in the instances given this
was the case only when the defeated suitor was the plaintiff: cf. Harp. s.
v. ὅπερ ἐδίδοσαν οἱ διώκοντες τοῖς φεύγουσιν,
εἰ μὴ ἕλοιεν,
and Schol. Aeschin. c.
§ 163, οἱ γραψάμενοι τινας
καὶ μὴ ἑλόντες.
Of others, however, viz. cross suits
Pollux, 8.58), and those
in which a preliminary question as to the admissibility of the original
cause of action was raised (παραγραφαί,
Isocr. c. Callim.
§ 3, ὁπότερος δ᾽ἂν ἡττηθῇ, τὴν ἐπωβελίαν ὀφείλειν
12 and Schol. Aeschin. c. Tim.
§ 163, ὃ προσώφειλεν ὁ ἁλούς: ἐνομοθέτησε δὲ τοῦτο ὁ
etc.; Dem. c. Steph.
i. p. 1103.6),
Pollux's statement holds good. As the object of the regulation was to
inflict a penalty upon the litigious and recompense their victims, the fine
was paid to the successful suitor. (Boeckh, Sthh.
3 1.430-439.) Fränkel (l.c.
p. 83) holds that the plaintiff, if defeated, in any case paid
the epobelia, whether he gained as many as one-fifth of votes or not (he
prefers Libanius, ed. by Förster, in Hermes,
ix. p. 53, to Pollux), and that the defendant had to pay
it only in a παραγραφὴ
if he got less than one-fifth of the
votes. (Att. Process,