Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

,qC6 PARAG RAPHE.'PAR.lAGRA PTIE.
not mean a laznd elevated and cultzlvated, as Ge- the last case the wrapa-ypaop would anIswer to ourt
senius and others state, but merely aforeign country, plea to the jIrisdiction. (Demosth. c. Panztaen. 976;
whence is derived paradesshi, a foreainer. The Suidas, s. v. napa3ypacp/ and "eiOvsfcia.)
word occurs in Hebrew (fi).3, paredes) as early The 7rapaypaop, like every other answer (ldTlas the time of Solomlon (Eccles. ii. 5; Cant. i. ) made by te defendant to the plinti'
13), and is also found in Arabic (firdacs), and charge, was given in writing; as the word itself
Armenian (pardes, Schroeder, Dissert. VTeszaa. implies. (Demosth. c. PMorin. 912.) If the deLing. XArnies. peae^nsiss. p. 56). fendant merely denied the plaintiff's allegations, or
PARAGAUDA (e7rpa yc&-sqs), the border of a (as we might say) pleaded the general issue, he was
tunic LLIMsus], enriched with gold thread, worn said ev OuaKav or r~V ebsOEav Eie'ar.1, or (to7by ladies, but not allowed to men except as one of AoyETerOatL ThV e5vesslKLav eio'toC. In this case a
the insignia of office. These borders were among court was at once held for the trial of the cause.
the rich presents given by Furius Placidus A.D. If, however, he pnt in a rapeypa/j, he maintained
343, when he was made consul (lineae paragacadae, that the cause was not elayc6,yLltos (7rapeypd4a-ro
Vopise. Aurel. 15). Under the later emperors W eranycra yte1oe euae Tjv aIKicv), and in that case
the manufacture of them was forbidden except in a court was to be held to try the preliminary
their own gynaecea. (Cod. 11. tit. 8. s. ], 2.) The question, whether the cause could be brought into
term p1aragyauda, which is probably of Oriental court or not. Upon this previous trial the defendorigin, seems also to have been converted into an ant was considered the actor, and hence is said by
adjective, and thus to have become the denomina- Deimosthenes (c. P/loren. 908) tcrTryopeY,'roi
tion of the tunic, which was decorated with such a&6scOVTOS. He began, and had to maintain the
borders. (Lyddns de 3I~,ag. i. 17, ii. 4. 13.) [J. Y.1 ground of objection which he relied upon. (Demosth.
PARAGRiAPHE (7rapa-ypao4). This word c. Steph. 1103.) If lie succeeded, the whole cause
does not exactly correspond with any term in our was at an ed; nless the objection was only to the
language, but may without much impropriety be forn of action, or some other such technicality, in
called a plea. It is an objection raised by the de- which case it might be recommenced in the proper
fendant to the admissibility of the plaintiff's ac- mainier. If, however, the plaintiff succeeded, the
tion:'" exceptio rei adversus actorem, actionemve, jur merely decided eiay'nylso eini r3J PisCs7u
quereiltis ant de foro hand comlpetente, anut de and then the original action, which in the meantempore, modove procedendi illegitimo." (Reis;e, tiithe had been suspended, was proceeded witlh.
Index Gs'. in Orat.) Sir William Jones, in the pre- (Demosth. c. Zenoth. 888; Lys. de Publ. Pec. 148,
face to his translation of Isieus, compares it with a ed. Steph.) Both parties on the trial of the
demnsurrer. But this is not so correct; because a raPpaYpe were liable to the ewreveAia, on failure
demurrer is an objection arising out of the adver- to obtain a fifth part of the votes.
sary's own statement of his case; whereas the Tllce course of proceeding on a 7rapa3ypacp+ was
7rapaypaep{ was an objection depending on facts obviously calculated to delay the progress of the
stated by the defendant himself, and therefore cause, and was therefore not looked on with favour
rather resembles aplea, or (more strictly) a special by the dicasts. nporpdeErs, rceuoklai, wrapaypaplea. This appears from the 7rapayparKoi X4yoslm ql, To 6ec ruv vulcuv, excuses, delays, pleas, legal
of Demosthenes, in which lwe find the defendant objections, are classed together by the orator as
introducing new allegations into the cause, and being the manoeuvres of defendants to defeat
supporting them by proof. Thus, in the speech justice. Hence we find in the extant arapaypaeagainst Nausimachus and Xenopithes, the ground ol Ao'oy, that the defendamt, in order to remo-e
of objection is, that the father of the defendants the prejudice of the dicasts against himself, not only
having obtained a release friom the plaintiffs, it supports the ground of the 7rapaypaeq3, but diswas no longer opeIn to the plaintiffs to bring an ac- cusses the general merits of the cause, and ention for the same cause. But the first mention of deavours to show that there is Ino foundation for
-this release is made by the defendants in their the plaintiff's complaint. And there is no doubt,
plea. In the speech against Zenothemis the de- that the dicasts were materially influenced by such
fendant objects, that the eyUropic7j aisc does not discussion, however in strictness irrelevant. (Delie, because there was no written contract between mosth. C. Afid. 541, c. Lacr. 924, c. Steph. 1117,
him and the plaintiff on a voyage to or from Athens; pro PPhoris. 944, A slgult. Or. c. Zenoth.) The
and this (says he) appears from the declaration same observation applies to the BtaeuapTvpta. [See
itself (fEv Twc Ay'ApEtarm). As parties could not H Eass.] (Isaeus, de Psiloct. her. 60, de Apoll.
be defeated at Athens by a technical objection to her'. 63. ed. Steph.; Demnosth. c. Leoch. 1097.)
the pleadings, the defendant in the above case, There was no such thing as this proceeding by
notwithstanding the defective statement of the 7rapayp 91, until after the expulsion of the thirty
plaintiff in the declaration, *was compelled to bring tyrants, when a law was passed oin the proposal of
forward his objection by plea, and to support it Archlinus, V,rs erriiclcasat 7raps -robs`psoKOI -
before the jury. In the speech against Phiormio, eFVa'rip eEYoVrt n rapypduPa Oaat, Trobs Bi apthe plaintiff says that as the defendant only denies XOu'rav repl roTrou 7rpCTrou eIdayei, Xi'yewV N
that he has committed a breach of the contract, 7rp rEpo' rbV -7rapaypaxdyEVOu, h7rshepos 8' &v
there was no occasion for a 7rapaypae: the ques- 17T71rOf1, TlJ E'7rroCeXl'av o (petilv. The object of
tion merely was, whether the plaintiff's charge was this law appears to have been, to enable any person
true. It seems that a srapaypa~ij might be put in, against whom an information or prosecution might
not only when the defendant could show that the be brought, or action commenced, for any matter
cause of action was discharged, or that it was not arising out of the late political troubles, to obtain
maintainable in point of law; but also when the the benefit of the general amnesty, by specially
form of action lwas misconceived, or when it was pleading the samile, alld so bringing his defence in
commenced at a wrong time, or brought before a more solenin manner before the court. The same
the wrong magistrate (7ecyl, a TisTar?spfou.) In privilege was afterwards extended to other grotroids