APOGRAPHE´
APOGRAPHE´ (
ἀπογραφή）
is literally “a list, or register;” but in the language of the
Attic courts, the terms
ἀπογράφειν and
ἀπογράφεσθαι had three separate
applications:--1.
Ἀπογραφή was used in
reference to an accusation in public matters, more particularly when there
were several defendants; the denunciation, the bill of indictment, and
enumeration of the accused would in this case be termed
apographé, and differ but little, if at all, from the
ordinary
graphé. (Andoc.
de
Myst. 13, 15, 17, &c.; Antiph.
de Choreut.
§ 35 ff.;
Hesych. sub voce
ἀπογραφή) 2. It implied the making of a
solemn protest or assertion before a magistrate, to the intent that it might
be preserved by him, till it was required to be given in evidence. (Isae.
Philoctem. § 44; Dem.
c.
Phaenipp. pp. 1043.16, 1046.24, &c.;
c.
Macart. p. 1068.54.) 3. It was a specification of property, said to
belong to the state, but actually in the possession of a private person;
which specification was made with a view to the confiscation of such
property to the state. (Lys.
pro Milite ; de bonis Aristoph.; c.
Philocr.）
The last case only requires a more extended illustration. There would be two
occasions upon which it would occur: first, when a person held public
property without purchase, as an intruder; and secondly, when the substance
of an individual was liable to confiscation in consequence of a judicial
award, as in the case of a declared state debtor. If no opposition were
offered, the
apographé would attain its
object, under the care of the magistrate to whose office it was brought;
otherwise, a public action arose, which is also designated by the same
title.
In a cause of the first kind, which is said in some cases to have also borne
the name
πόθεν ἔχει τὰ χρήματα καὶ πόσα ταῦτα
ἔη, the claimant against the state had merely to prove his
title to the property, as in the case
de bonis
Aristophanis; and with this we must class the case of a person
who impugned the
apographé, whereby the
substance of another was, or was proposed to be, confiscated, on the ground
that he had a loan by way of mortgage or other recognised security upon a
portion of it; or that the part in question did not in any way belong to the
state debtor, or person so mulcted. This kind of opposition to the
apographé is illustrated in the speech of
Demosthenes against Nicostratus, in which we learn that Apollodorus had
instituted an
apographé against
Arethusius, for nonpayment of a penalty incurred in a former action. Upon
this, Nicostratus attacks the description of the property, and maintains
that three slaves were wrongly set down in it as belonging to Arethusius,
for they were in fact his own.
In the second case, the defence could of course only proceed upon the alleged
illegality of the former penalty; and of this we have an instance in the
speech of Lysias, for the soldier. There Polyaenus had been condemned by the
generals to pay a fine for a breach of discipline; and, as he did not pay it
within the appointed time, an
apographé
to the amount of the fine was directed against him, which he opposes, on the
ground that the fine was illegal. The
apographé might be instituted by an Athenian citizen;
but if there were no private prosecutor, it became the duty of the demarchi
to proceed with it officially. Sometimes, however, extraordinary
commissioners, as the
συλλογεῖς and
ζητηταί, were appointed for the
purpose. The suits instituted against the
apographé belonged to the jurisdiction of the Eleven,
and for a while, after the expulsion of the Thirty, to that of the Syndici.
(
Πρὸς τοῖς συνδίκοις ἀπογραφὰς
ἀπογράφων, Lycurg. quoted by Harpocration.) The further conduct
of these causes would, of course, in a great measure depend upon the
claimant being, or not being, in possession of the proscribed property. In
the first case the
ἀπογράφων, in the
second the claimant, would appear in the character of a plaintiff. In a case
like that of Nicostratus above cited, the claimant would be obliged to
deposit a certain sum, which he forfeited if he lost his cause (
παρακαταβολή); in all, he would probably be
obliged to pay the costs or court fees (
πρυτανεῖα) upon the same contingency.
A private citizen, who prosecuted an individual by means of
ἀπογραφή, forfeited a thousand drachmas, if he
failed to obtain the votes of one-fifth of the dicasts, and reimbursed the
defendant his prytaneia upon acquittal. In the former case, too, he would
probably incur a modified atimia, i. e. a restriction from bringing such
actions for the future.
[
J.S.M] [
W.W]
