previous next


PARENGRAPTOI (παρέγγραπτοι, Aeschin. F. L. § 177, or παρέγγραφοι, Philoch. fr. 90) is the term applied to those who had their names enrolled in the register of citizens without being such either by birth or special grant (φύσει or δωρεᾷ). Such a one was liable to a γραφὴ ξενίας which any Athenian citizen might institute against him; and if condemned, his person and property was forfeited to the state and he was sold for a slave (Dem. Epist. iii. p. 1481.28; Schol. on c. Timocr. p. 741.131) [XENIAS GRAPHE], or he might be proceeded against by εἰσαγγελία (Dinarch. c. Agasicl.: cf. Hyper. pro Eux. 100.19; Dinarch. c. Pyth. etc.). Moreover the δημόται might by their διαψήφισις eject any person who was illegally enrolled among them. If he acquiesced in the verdict, his name was simply struck from the register, and he himself was degraded to the rank of an alien; if he did not acquiesce, but appealed to a court of dicasts, a heavier punishment awaited him if the dicasts confirmed the decision of the δημόται: he was sold as a slave, and his property confiscated by the state (Dem. c. Eubul. p. 1317.60 f.; Isae. pro Euphil. § 11, and argum.). [DIAPSEPHISIS] Plutarch (Plut. Per. 37) says that in consequence of a law of Pericles, when the Egyptian king Psammetichus sent grain to Athens as a present, proceedings were taken against the νόθοι, and that nearly 5,000 were sold as slaves. In Duncker's opinion (Ber. ii. d. Sitz. d. Berl. Akad. 1883, p. 935 ff.=Abhandl. a. d. Griech. Gesch. p. 124 ff.) this Periclean law is a mere invention of the rhetors, and was confounded with Pericles' proposal of a diayh/fisis (Müller-Strübing, Aristoph. u. d. hist. Krit. p. 89), occasioned by the distribution of grain sent from Egypt, when 4760 were found to be fraudulently enrolled as citizens (Philoch. fr. 90=schol. Aristoph. Wasps 718). As stated above, not all persons struck off the registers were sold as slaves, but only those who unsuccessfully appealed to a court of dicasts; hence Plutarch's statement cannot possibly be correct. The larger number does not allow us to think of γραφαὶ ξενίας (as Philippi, Beitr. z. Gesch. d. Att. Bürgerr. p. 34 ff., suggests); and supposing that a διαψήφισις was instituted, it is inconceivable that so large a number should have appealed unsuccessfully to the courts. The idea of such a large number of persons having been struck off the registers is probably due to the following calculation:--The total number of citizens was taken at 19,000; according to Philochorus, 14,240 citizens received a share of the grain: thus 4,760 remained over who were looked upon as παρέγγραφοι. Yet 14,240 does not represent the total of citizens that remained after the διαψήφισις (Fränkel, Att. Geschworenger. p. 3 ff.), but only the number of those who received the grain, and the 4,760 includes not only the spurious citizens, but also all those citizens who for reasons of their own did not apply for a share (Busolt, Griech. Gesch. ii. p. 574 ff.). The term παρεισγραφῆς δίκη (Plut. Amator. 13, p. 756 D) is not Attic. (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 438 ff., 1030 f.)

[C.R.K] [H.H]

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: