In certain cases the law empowered the jury to inflict an extra penalty, beyond the pecuniary fine; as for instance, imprisonment; which any individual juror was at liberty to propose1. Here there would be no difficulty. The law specified how the party might be punished; and the jury divided upon a single question, whether that punishment should be inflicted or not.

In those cases, where the penalty was fixed by law, the jury had nothing to do but to find the party guilty or not guilty. If they found him guilty, the penalty of the law attached.

1 προστιμασθαι. But no mention is ever made of a juror being allowed to propose the penalty (Tiμaobα) in the first instance,

Meier and Schömann (in their work on Attic lawsuits) are not agreed on this subject. I take the same view as Meier.

NOTE 13.

DISFRANCHISEMENT.

DISFRANCHISEMENT was the deprivation of those civil rights, to which every man as citizen of Athens was entitled; of which the principal were; the right to speak and vote in the general assembly; to hold magisterial offices; to be a juror, prosecutor, or witness in a court of justice; to bear arms in defence of the state; to go upon any public mission or embassy; to attend at festivals and sacrifices; to enter the market place.

The loss of such rights would not only be a forfeiture of political rank and privileges, but a sort of outlawry and excommunication.

They might be lost either for a time, or for ever; either wholly, or partially.

For a time, in the case of state debtors; who, from the moment they became indebted to the public treasury, were forbidden to exercise any of their civil rights until the debt was paid. Thus, if a lessee of public property did not pay the rents when they became due, or if a man sentenced to pay a fine did not pay it immediately, he was ipso

facto disfranchised; and, if he died in debt, the misfortune extended to his children. But he or they might at any time relieve themselves, by settling the account with the state; for the object was not so much to punish the debtor, as to enforce the collection of public money. Cimon, son of Miltiades, before he could engage in political affairs, or assume the rank of a citizen, was compelled to pay a fine of fifty talents, which had been imposed on his father. The money was advanced by Callias, in return for the hand of his sister Elpinice. A glorious action is related by Demosthenes of one Aristonicus, who had been saving up money to recover his franchise, but after the battle of Chæronea, when Athens was alarmed for her safety, gave the whole of his savings to assist his country.

Loss of franchise was often inflicted as a pu nishment on public offenders; such as thieves, false witnesses, deserters, cowards, men who took bribes to betray their trust, or who ill used their parents, or insulted a magistrate in the discharge of his duty; and for various other crimes and misdemeanours. Sometimes the law itself imposed the penalty; sometimes it was left to the discretion of the jury. Thus, if a man had been three times convicted of perjury, he was ipso facto disfranchised; but for the first or second offence the jury might disfranchise or not, as they pleased.

In these cases the degraded person had no

means of relieving himself. The sentence was for his life, and often extended to his posterity. He could not petition for its reversal; for he was not permitted to open his lips in any court or assembly; and it was extremely hazardous for any other person to petition in his behalf. Demosthenes thus describes the situation of a man, whom Midias had deprived of his franchise by a false charge. He would have called him as a witness against Midias, but (this being unlawful) he says:

"Call Straton himself, the man who has suffered this calamity. I suppose he will be allowed to stand-You see him, Athenians-a poor perhaps, but not a bad man-a citizen, who has served in every campaign during his age of service, and committed no crime-there he stands in silence, deprived not only of his civil rights, but of the power of speaking or complaining; unable even to tell you, whether his sentence was just or unjust."

The people by a special decree might restore any man to his rank, either as having been unjustly condemned, or as a reward for services done by him or his family. In times of emergency they would grant a general restoration of the franchise to all who had been deprived. This was done before the first Persian war, when Attica was threatened with invasion by Darius; and again after the battle of Charonea Hyperides passed a law, to restore the exiles and the disfranchised, to enfranchise aliens, and give liberty to slaves

who had fought in defence of the country. He was impeached for this measure by Aristogiton, but acquitted. A fragment of his speech is preserved:

"What is it you reproach me with? Proposing to give slaves their freedom? I did so, to save freemen from slavery-Restoring exiles to their country? I restored them, that no man might become an exile-Not reading the laws which forbade these measures? I could not read them; for the arms of the Macedonians took away my eyesight."

There might be a partial disfranchisement, (that is) a deprivation of particular rights by a special judgment or decree. Thus, we are told, the soldiers who remained in the city during the interregnum of the four hundred in the Peloponnesian war, were deprived of the power to address the people, or to be members of the senate, though their other rights were not taken away. But the common instance of partial disfranchisement was, where a man accused another of some crime, and failed to prosecute the charge, or (having prosecuted) failed to obtain a fifth part of the votes, and was thereby disabled to bring a similar accusation in future. The object was, on the one hand, to discourage frivolous charges, on the other, to prevent any fraudulent compromise of a charge once made. A further penalty of a thousand drachms fell on the accuser.

Loss of franchise was often accompanied by