Scanned text contains errors.
have been frequently confounded by modern writers. [palaestra.] Their exercises were superintended by the gymnasiarch (yv/j.vacridpx'ns), and their diet was regulated by the aliptes (dAenr-vrjs). [aliptae.] According to Pausanias (vi. 7. § 3), the athletae did not anciently eat meat, but principally lived upon fresh cheese (rvpbv ck rfhv raX&pwv) ; and Diogenes Laertius (viii. 12, IS) informs us that their original diet consisted of dried figs (tV\;acn |i7pa?s), moist or new cheese (rvpots vyptiis), arid wheat (7rupo?s). The eating of meat by the athletae is said, according to some writers (Pans. /. c.), to have been first introduced by Dromeus of Stymphalus, in Arcadia ; and, according to others, by the philosopher Pythagoras, or by an aliptes of that name. (Diog. Lae'rt. I. c.) According to Galen (De Veil. Tuend. iii. 1), the athletae, who practised the severe exercises (/3ape?s a6\7jTai)9 ate pork and a particular kind of bread ; and from a remark of Diogenes the Cynic (Diog. Lae'rt. vi. 49), it would appear that in his time beef and pork formed the ordinary diet of the athletae. Beef is also mentioned by Plato (De Rep. i. p. 338) as the food of the athletae; and a writer quoted by Athenaeus (ix. p. 402, c. d.) relates that a Theban who lived upon goats' flesh became so strong, that he was enabled to overcome all the athletae of his time. At the end of the exercises of each day, the athletae were obliged to take a certain quantity of food, which was usually called avajKo^ayta and avayKOTpotyia, or fiiaios rpofyi) (Arist. Pol. viii. 4) ; after which, they were accustomed to sleep for a long while. The quantity of animal food which some celebrated athletae, such as Milo, Theagenes, and Astydamas, are said to have eaten, appears to us quite incredible. (Athen. x. pp. 412,413.) The food which they ate was usually dry, and is called lay Juvenal coliphia (ii. 53).
The athletae were anointed with oil by the aliptae, previously to entering the palaestra and contending in the public games, and were accustomed to contend naked. In the description of the games given in the twenty-third book of the Iliad (/. 685, 710), the combatants are said to have worn a girdle about their loins ; and the same practice, as we learn from Thucydides (i. 6), anciently prevailed at the Olympic games, but was discontinued afterwards.
This subject is one of such extent that nothing but an outline can here be gi /en ; further particulars are contained in the articles isthmia, nemea, olympia, and pythia ; and the whole subject is treated most elaborately by Krause, Die Gym-nastik imd Agonistik der Jldlenen, Leipzig, 1841.
ATHLO THETAE. [agonothetae.]
ATIMIA (arj/xia). A citizen of Athens had the power to exercise all the rights and privileges of a citizen as long as he was not suffering under any kind of atimia, a word which in meaning nearly answers to our outlawry, in as much as a person forfeited by it the protection of the laws of his county, and mostly all the rights of a citizen also. The atimia occurs in Attica as early as the legislation of Solon, without the term itself being in any way defined in the laws (Dem. c. Aristocrat, p. 640), which shows that the idea connected with it must, even at that time, have baen familiar to the Athenians, and this idea was probably that of a complete civil death ; that is, an individual labouring under atiinia, together with
all that belonged to him (his children as well as Iii's property), had, in the eyes of the state and the laws, no existence at all. This atiinia, undoubtedly the only one in early times, may be termed a total one, and in cases where it was inflicted as a punishment for any particular crime, was generally also perpetual and hereditary; hence Demosthenes, in speaking of a person suffering under it, often uses the expression /ra0a7ra£ artjuos, or airX&s ariparai (c. Mid. p. 542, c. Aristog. p. 779, c. Mid. p. 546). A detailed enumeration of the rights of which an atimos was deprived, is given by Aes-chines (c. TimarcJi. pp. 44, 46). He was not allowed to hold any civil or priestly office whatever, either in the city of Athens itself, or in any town within the dominion of Athens; he could not be employed as herald or as ambassador; he could not give his opinion or speak either in the public assembly or in the senate, he was not even allowed to appear within the extent of the agora; he was excluded from visiting the public sanctuaries as well as from taking part in any public sacrifice ; he could neither bring an action against a person from whom he had sustained an injury, nor appear as a witness in any of the courts of justice; nor could, on the other hand, any one bring an action against him. (Compare Dem. c. Neaer. p. 1353, c. Timo-crat. p. 739, De Lib. Rhod. p. 200, Philip, iii. p. 122, c. Mid. p. 542, Lys. c. Andoc. p. 222.) The right which, in point of fact, included most of those which we have here enumerated, was that of taking part in the popular assembly (Xeyeiv and ypdtyew'). Hence, this one right is most frequently the only one which is mentioned as being forfeited by atiinia. (Dem. c. Timocrat. pp. 715, 717; Aeschin. c. Timarch. p. 54, &c.; Andocid. De Myst. p. 36 ; Dem. c. Androt. pp. 602, 604.) The service in the Athenian armies was not only regarded in the light of a duty which a citizen had to perform towards the state, but as a right and a privilege ; of which therefore the atimos was likewise deprived. (Dem. c. Timocrat. p. 715.) When we hear that an atimos had no right to claim the protection of the laws, when suffering injuries from others, we must not imagine that it was the intention of the law to expose the atimos to the insults or ill-treatment of his former fellow-citizens, or to encourage the people to maltreat him with impunity, as might be inferred from the expression ol farifjioi rov tQiXovros (Plat. Gorg. p. 508) ; but all that the law meant to do was, that if any such thing happened, the atimos had no right to claim the protection of the laws. We have above referred to two laws mentioned by Demosthenes, in which the children and the property of an atimos were included in the atimia. As regards the children or heirs, the infamy came to them as an inheritance which they could not avoid. [herbs.] But when we read of the property of a man being included in the atimia, it can only mean that it shared the lawless character of its owner, that is, it did not enjoy the protection of the law, and could not be mortgaged. The property of an atimos for a positive "crime, such as those mentioned below, was probably never confiscated, but only in the case of a public "debtor, as we shall see hereafter; and when Andocides (de Myst.}>. 36) uses the expression &ti/aoi ?i<rav ra crd-fiara, to. 5e xM/-1"™ etxw, the contrary which ho had in view can only have been the case of a public debtor. On the whole, it appears to have been