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
). Such a one was liable to a γραφὴ
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.
§ 11, and argum.
] 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.
1883, p. 935 ff.=Abhandl. a. d. Griech.
p. 124 ff.) this Periclean law is a mere invention of the
rhetors, and was confounded with Pericles' proposal of a diayh/fisis
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
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.
574 ff.). The term παρεισγραφῆς δίκη
13, p. 756 D) is not Attic.
ed. Lipsius, p. 438 ff., 1030 f.)