Scanned text contains errors.
RGt PARAGRAPHE.
not mean a land elevated and cultivated, as Ge-senius and others state, but merely a foreign country, whence is derived paradesini, a foreigner. The word occurs in Hebrew (D^I*]S, paredei) as earl}’-
•
as the time of Solomon (Eccles. ii. 5 ; Cant. ir. 13), and is also found in Arabic (firdaus}, and Armenian {pardes, Schroeder, Dissert. Thesaur. Ling. Armen. praemiss, p. 56).
PARAGAUDA (-rrapayaJS^s), the border of a tunic [LlMBUs], enriched with gold thread, worn by ladies, but not alloved to men except as one of the insignia of office. These borders were among the rich presents given by Furius Placidus a.d. 343, when he was made consul (lineae paragaudae,, Vopisc. Aurel. 15). Under the later emperors the manufacture of them was forbidden except in their own gynaecea. (Cod. 11. tit. 8. s. 1, 2.) The term paragauda, which is probably of Oriental origin, seems also to have been converted into an adjective, and thus to have become the denomination of the tunic, which was decorated with such borders. (Lydus de Mag. i. 17, ii. 4. 13.) [J. Y.~|
PARAGRAPHE (irapaypnf-fi). This word does not exactly correspond with any term in our language, but may without much impropriety be called a plea. It is an objection raised by the defendant to the admissibility of the plaintiff’s action : " exceptio rei adversus actorem, actionemve, querentis aut de foro haud competente, aut de tempore, modove procedendi illegitimo." (Reiske, Index Gr. in Orat.) Sir William Jones, in the preface to his translation of Isaeus, compares it with a demurrer. But this is not so correct ; because a demurrer is an objection arising out of the adversary’s own statement of his case ; whereas the irapaypcKp’f) was an objection depending on facts stated by the defendant himself, and therefore rather resembles a plea, or (more strictly) a special plea. This appears from the irapaypatyiKoi 6yot of Demosthenes, in which we find the defendant introducing new allegations into the cause, and supporting them by proof. Thus, in the speech against Nausimachus and Xenopithes, the ground of objection is, that the father of the defendants having obtained a release from the p]aintiffs, it was no longer open to the plaintiffs to bring an action for the same cause. But the first mention of this release is made by the defendants in their plea. In the speech against Zenothemis the defendant objects, that the e/xTropiK?^ si’k?] does not lie, because there was no written contract between him and the plaintiff on a voyage to or from Athens ; and this (says he) appears from the declaration itself («> rcf> c-yKAstern). As parties could not be defeated at Athens by a technical objection to the pleadings, the defendant in the above case, notwithstanding the defective statement of the plaintiff in the declaration, was compelled to bring forward his objection by plea, and to support it before the jury. In the speech against Phormio, the plaintiff says that as the defendant only denies that he has committed a breach of the contract, there was no occasion for a irapaypaty’fi: the question merely was, whether the plaintiff’s charge was true. It seems that a TrapaypatyT] might be put in, not only when the defendant could show that the cause of action was discharged, or that it was not maintainable in point of law ; but also when the form of action was misconceived, or when it was commenced at a wrong time, or brought before the wrong magistrate (rjytpwv SiKaarrypiov.) In
‘ PARAGRAPH E.-
the last case the rrapaypa^i would answer to our plea to the jurisdiction. (Demosth. c. Pantaen. 916 ; Suidas, s. v. Hapaypa^ and evOv^tKia.)
The irapaypaty’f], like every other answer (dz/rz-ypafyi]) made by the defendant to the plaintiff’s charge, was given in writing ; as the word itself implies. (Demosth. c. Phorm. 912.) If the defendant merely denied the plaintiff’s allegations, or (as we might say) pleaded the ge?ieral issue, he was said zvQvb’tKiav or t^v evOetav eiVteVcu, or aTro-oyeiff9ai rty evdvfiiKiav slffidbv. .In this case a court was at once held for the trial of the cause. If, however, he put in a irapaypa^, he maintained that the cause was not elcraycbyL/jios (irapeypdtyaro fj.7] zio’ay&ytfjLoi’ elvai rfyv Si/oyz/), and in that case a court was to be held to try the preliminary question, whether the cause could be brought into court or not. Upon this previous trial the defendant was considered the actor, and hence is said by Demosthenes (c. Phorm. 908) Karyyope’ijs rov si&kovtos. He began, and had to maintain the ground of objection which he relied upon. (Demosth. c. Steph. 1103.) If he succeeded, the whole cause was at an end ; unless the objection was only to tho form of action, or some other such technicality, in which case it might be recommenced in the propoy manner. If, however, the plaintiff succeeded, the jury merely decided €i(ray<6yif.iov sivai tiiv 5i/c??i/, and then the original action, which in the meantime had been suspended, was proceeded with. (Demosth. c. Zenoth. 888 ; Lys. de Pull. Pec. 148, ed. Steph.) Both parties on the trial of the Trapaypoup’h were liable to the eVcogeAt’a, on failure to obtain a fifth part of the votes.
The course of proceeding on a Trapaypa^ was obviously calculated to delay the progress of the cause, and was therefore not looked .on with favour by the dicasts. Dpo^curets, uTrw/.tocn’cu, Trapaypa-fyal, to. e/c ru>v v6^uv, excuses, delays, pleas, legal objections, are classed together by the orator as being the manoeuvres of defendants to defeat justice. Hence we find in the extant TrapaypaQt,-Kol 6yoi, that the defendant, in order to remove the prejudice of the dicasts against himself, not only supports the ground of the Trapaypatyfy, but discusses the general merits of the cause, and endeavours to show that there is no foundation for the plaintiff’s complaint. And there is no doubt that the dicasts were materially influenced by such discussion, however in strictness irrelevant. (Demosth. c. Mid. 541, c. Lacr. 924, c. Steph. 1117, pro Phorm. 944, Argum. Or. c. Zenoth.} The same observation applies to the Siapaprvpia. [See heres.] (Isaeus, de Phitoct. her. 60, de ApolL her. 63. ed. Steph. ; Demosth. c. Leocli. 1097.)
There was no such thing as this proceeding by Trapaypa^i, until after the expulsion of the thirty tyrants, when a law was passed on the proposal of Archinus, &v ris Si/cct^rai irapa. robs opKOVs, e£-eivo.i to) (bzvyovri Trapuypd^affQai, robs 8e ap-Xo^Ta? irepl rovrov irp&rov elo’dyeti’, tytiv 8e irportpov rbv irapaypa’fyd/jt.ei’ov, oirorepos 8′ &f f]rrr)6r}, rfy eVco£eAtay bfysiXsiv. The object of this law appears to have been, to enable any person against whom an information or prosecution might be brought, or action commenced, for any matter arising out of the late political troubles, to obtain the benefit of the general amnesty, by specially pleading the same, and so bringing his defence in, a more solemn manner before the court. The saina privilege was afterwards extended to other groimds
