Following the idea first expressed by Heinrich Swoboda, there is a general perception that the meaning of ἀτιμία in Athens eventually evolved from the original ‘outlawry’, when an ἄτιμος was liable to being deprived of his property and slayed with impunity if he returned to the land from which he had been banished, into a certain limitation on civic status, which has often been rendered as a ‘disfranchisement’. Specific outcomes of this later form of ἀτιμία varied depending on the dating (...) and circumstances of individual cases, thereby giving rise to theories of a so-called full – or ‘total’ – and partial ἀτιμία. Still, whether it was viewed as ‘full’ or ‘partial’, this ἀτιμία did not inflict the death penalty. The precise dating of the transformation of ἀτιμία has also been debated, with opinions ranging from pre-Solonian times (L'Homme-Wéry) to the late sixth (Swoboda, Hansen, Manville) or the late fifth century (Scafuro). While the exact dating is unknown, this transformation was definitely over in the fifth century, when inscriptions and literary texts mentioned punishment by ἀτιμία alongside the death penalty and the confiscation of property. Thus, according to Raphael Sealey, ἀτιμία evolved ‘from a more severe to a milder sense’, and Alick R.W. Harrison pointed to the evidence that, by the fourth century, any willing Athenian could seize an ἄτιμος who happened to be in Athenian territory and surrender him to the θεσμοθέται, instead of killing him. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Klio Jahrgang: 99 Heft: 1 Seiten: 354-358.

This article contextualizes an old debate about the extent of knowledge of Latin by John Lydus, a state official and an erudite from sixth-century Constantinople, within a broader issue of the role of Latin in early Byzantium. It is argued here that Lydus’ startling etymological explanations had no relation to his level of knowledge of Latin, but reflected the declining official use of Latin in Byzantium by resurrecting the theory about Latin as a dialect of Greek.

This paper illustrates specific ways in which the Romans perceived Greek political practices and terminology, and shows how Roman texts often confused, misinterpreted, and mistranslated Greek political practices and vocabulary when adjusting them to Roman cultural and political realities.