previous next


PSEUDOCLETEIAS GRAPHE (ψευδοκλητείας γραφή), a prosecution against one who had falsely appeared as a κλητὴρ or κλήτωρ, i. e. a witness to prove that a defendant had been duly summoned, and who had thereby enabled the plaintiff to get a judgment by default. To prevent fraud the Athenian law directed that the names of the witnesses (usually two in number; CLETERES) who attended the summons should be subscribed to the bill of plaint or indictment (ἔγκλημα), so that the defendant, if he had never been summoned and judgment had nevertheless been given against him by default (ἐρήμη δίκη), might know against whom to proceed. A good example of the practical necessity for legislation on this point occurs in Dem. c. Nicostr. p. 1251.14, where we read of ἀπρόδκλητον ἐξ ἐμφανῶν καταστάσεως ἐπιβολήν, “a fine for non-production of property in court demanded (and even registered) without formal citation” (cf. Sandys ad loc.; Att. Process, p. 976 Lips.). The false witness (κλητὴρ) was liable to be criminally prosecuted, and punished at the discretion of the court. Even death might be inflicted in case of gross conspiracy (Dem. op. cit. p. 1252.18). A person thrice convicted of this offence was, as in the case of other false testimony, ipso jure disfranchised; and even for the first offence the jury might, if they pleased, by a προστίμησις inflict the penalty of atimia upon him (Andoc. de Myst. § 74; Meier, de Bon. Damn. p. 125). Here we may observe this distinction, that the proceeding against the false witness to a summons was of a criminal nature, while the witness in the cause (μάρτυς) was liable only to a civil action. The reason may have been that the former offence was more likely to do mischief. The magistrates before whom the defendant neglected to appear, when by the evidence of the witness it was shown that he had been duly summoned, had no discretion but to pronounce judgment against him; whereas the dicasts, to whom the witness gave evidence at the trial, might disbelieve him and find their verdict according to the truth. If the fraud was owing to a conspiracy between the plaintiff and the witness, it is probable that an action at the suit of the defendant would lie against the former to recover compensation; for, though the conviction of the witness would lead to a reversal of the judgment, still he (the defendant) might have suffered damage in the meantime, which the setting aside of the judgment would not repair. Such action might, it would seem, be a δίκη συκοφαντίας (Att. Process, p. 413, Lips.) or κακοτεχνιῶν (ib. 492-3). If the name of the witness had been fraudulently used by the plaintiff, and the witness had thereby been brought into trouble, there is evidence, as well as probability, that he had a δίκη βλάβης against the plaintiff (ib. 415; Dem. c. Aphob. iii. p. 849.16). The γραφὴ ψευδοκλητείας came before the Thesmothetae, and the question at the trial simply was, whether the defendant in the former cause had been summoned or not. Theopompus, in a passage which is perhaps a libel upon the Athenians, says that Athens was full λωποδυτῶν ψευδομαρτύρων καὶ συκοφαντῶν καὶ ψευδοκλητήρων (ap. Ath. vi. p. 254 b). (Pollux, 8.40; Harpocr. s.v. Bekk. Anecd. 317; Boeckh, Kl. Schriften, 4.120 ff.; Platner,; Klagen u. Process, 1.417; K. F. Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 140; Att. Process, p. 414 f., Lips.)

[C.R.K] [W.W]

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