Exomis (Bronze in British Museum).
Exomis (Bronze in British Museum).
EXŌMŎSĬA (ἐξωμοσία). Any Athenian citizen when called upon to appear as a witness in a court of justice (κλητεύεινorἐκκλητεύειν), was obliged by law to obey the summons, unless he could establish by oath that he was unacquainted with the case in question. This oath was calledἐξωμοσία, and the act of taking it was expressed byἐξόμνυσθαι. A person appointed to a public office was at liberty to decline it, if he could take an oath that the state of his health or other circumstances rendered it impossible for him to fulfil the duties connected with it (ἐξόμνυσθαι τὴν ἀρχὴν, orτὴν χειροτονίαν): and this oath was likewise calledἐξωμοσία, or sometimesἀπωμοσία.
EXOSTRA (ἐξώστρα, fromἐξωθέω), a theatrical machine, by means of which things which had been concealed behind the curtain on the stage were pushed or rolled forward from behind it, and thus became visible to the spectators.
EXPĔDĪTUS is opposed toimpeditus, and signifies unincumbered with armour or withbaggage (impedimenta). Hence the epithet was often applied to any portion of the Roman army, when the necessity for haste, or the desire to conduct it with the greatest facility from place to place, made it desirable to leave behind every weight that could be spared.
EXPLŌRĀTŌRES. [Speculatores.]
EXSĔQUĬAE. [Funus.]
EXSĬLĬUM (φυγή), banishment. (1)Greek.Banishment among the Greek states seldom, if ever, appears as a punishment appointed by law for particular offences. We might, indeed, expect this, for the division of Greece into a number of independent states would neither admit of the establishment of penal colonies, as among us, nor of the various kinds of exile which we read of under the Roman emperors. The general termφυγή(flight) was for the most part applied in the case of those who, in order to avoid some punishment or danger, removed from their own country to another. At Athens it took place chiefly in cases of homicide, or murder. An action for wilful murder was brought before the Areiopagus, and for manslaughter before the court of the Ephetae. The accused might, in either case, withdraw himself (φεύγειν) before sentence was passed; but when a criminal evaded the punishment to which an act of murder would have exposed him had he remained in his own land, he was then banished for ever (φεύγει ἀειφυγίαν), and not allowed to return home even when other exiles were restored upon a general amnesty. Demosthenes says, that the wordφεύγεινwas properly applied to the exile of those who committed murder with malice aforethought, whereas the termμεθίστασθαιwas used where the act was not intentional. The property also was confiscated in the former case, but not in the latter. When a verdict of manslaughter was returned, it was usual for the convicted party to leave his country by a certain road, and to remain in exile till he induced some one of the relatives of the slain man to take compassion on him. We are not informed what were the consequences if the relatives of the slain man refused to make a reconciliation; supposing that there was no compulsion, it is reasonable to conclude that the exile was allowed to return after a fixed time. Plato, who is believed to have copied many of his laws from the constitution of Athens, fixes the period of banishment for manslaughter at one year.—Underφυγή, or banishment, as a general term, is comprehendedOstracism, (ὀστρακισμός). Those that were ostracised did not lose their property, and the time, as well as place of their banishment, was fixed. This ostracism is supposed by some to have been instituted by Cleisthenes, after the expulsion of the Peisistratidae; its nature and object are thus explained by Aristotle:—“Democratical states (he observes) used to ostracise, and remove from the city for a definite time, those who appeared to be preeminent above their fellow-citizens, by reason of their wealth, the number of their friends, or any other means of influence.” Ostracism, therefore, was not a punishment for any crime, but rather a precautionary removal of those who possessed sufficient power in the state to excite either envy or fear. Thus Plutarch says, it was a good-natured way of allaying envy by the humiliation of superior dignity and power. The manner of effecting it at Athens was as follows:—A space in theagorawas enclosed by barriers, with ten entrances for the ten tribes. By these the tribesmen entered, each with hisostracon(ὄστρακον), or piece of tile (whence the nameostracism), on which was written the name of the individual whom he wished to be ostracised. The nine archons and the senate,i.e.the presidents of that body, superintended the proceedings, and the party who had the greatest number of votes against him, supposing that this number amounted to 6000, was obliged to withdraw (μεταστῆναι) from the city within ten days; if the number of votes did not amount to 6000, nothing was done. Some of the most distinguished men at Athens were removed by ostracism, but recalled when the city found their services indispensable. Among these were Themistocles, Aristeides, and Cimon, son of Miltiades. The last person against whom it was used at Athens was Hyperbolus, a demagogue of low birth and character; but the Athenians thought their own dignity compromised, and ostracism degraded by such an application of it, and accordingly discontinued the practice.—From the ostracism of Athens was copied thePetalism(πεταλισμός) of the Syracusans, so called from theπέταλον, or leaf of the olive, on which was written the name of the person whom they wished to remove from the city. The removal, however, was only for five years; a sufficient time, as they thought, to humble the pride and hopes of the exile. In connection with petalism it may be remarked, that if any one were falsely registered in a demus, or ward, at Athens, his expulsion was calledἐκφυλλοφορία, from the votes being given by leaves. Besides those exiled by law, or ostracised, there was frequently a great number of political exiles in Greece; men who, having distinguished themselves as the leaders of one party, were expelled, or obliged to removefrom their native city, when the opposite faction became predominant. They are spoken of asοἱ φεύγοντεςorοἱ ἐκπεσόντες, and asοἱ κατελθόντεςafter their return (ἡ κάθοδος) the wordκατάγεινbeing applied to those who were instrumental in effecting it.—(2)Roman.Banishment as a punishment did not exist in the old Roman state. Theaquae et ignis interdictio, which we so frequently read of in the republican period, was in reality not banishment, for it was only a ban, pronounced by the people (by alex), or by a magistrate in a criminal court, by which a person was deprived of water and of fire; that is, of the first necessaries of life; and its effect was to incapacitate a person from exercising the rights of a citizen; in other words, to deprive him of his citizenship. Such a person might, if he chose, remain at Rome, and submit to the penalty of being an outcast, incapacitated from doing any legal act, and liable to be killed by any one with impunity. To avoid these dangers, a person suffering under such an interdict would naturally withdraw from Rome, and in the earlier republican period, if he withdrew to a state between which and Rome isopolitical relations existed, he would become a citizen of that state. This right was calledjus exsulandiwith reference to the state to which the person came; with respect to his own state, which he left, he wasexsul, and his condition wasexsilium; and with respect to the state which he entered, he wasinquilinus.[2]In the same way a citizen of such a state had a right of going into exsilium at Rome; and at Rome he might attach himself (applicare se) to a quasi-patronus. Exsilium, instead of being a punishment, would thus rather be a mode of evading punishment; but towards the end of the republic theaquae et ignis interdictiobecame a regular banishment, since the sentence usually specified certain limits, within which a person was interdicted from fire and water. Thus Cicero was interdicted from fire and water within 400 miles from the city. The punishment was inflicted for various crimes, asvis publica,peculatus,veneficium, &c. Under the empire there were two kinds of exsilium;exsiliumproperly so called, andrelegatio; the great distinction between the two was, that the former deprived a person of his citizenship, while the latter did not. The distinction betweenexsiliumandrelegatioexisted under the republic. Ovid also describes himself, not asexsul, which he considers a term of reproach, but asrelegatus. The chief species of exsilium was thedeportatio in insulamordeportatiosimply, which was introduced under the emperors in place of theaquae et ignis interdictio. Therelegatiomerely confined the person within, or excluded him from particular places. In the latter case it was calledfuga lata,fuga libera, orliberum exsilium. Therelegatuswent into banishment; thedeportatuswas conducted to his place of banishment, sometimes in chains.
FOOTNOTE:[2]This word appears, by its terminationinus, to denote a person who was one of a class, like the wordlibertinus. The prefixinappears to be the correlative ofexinexsul, and the remaining partquilis probably related tocolinincolaandcolonus.
[2]This word appears, by its terminationinus, to denote a person who was one of a class, like the wordlibertinus. The prefixinappears to be the correlative ofexinexsul, and the remaining partquilis probably related tocolinincolaandcolonus.
[2]This word appears, by its terminationinus, to denote a person who was one of a class, like the wordlibertinus. The prefixinappears to be the correlative ofexinexsul, and the remaining partquilis probably related tocolinincolaandcolonus.
EXTISPEX. [Haruspex.]
EXTRĂORDĬNĀRĬI. [Exercitus,p. 167.]