DĬĂDĒMA, originally a white fillet, used to encircle the head. It is represented on the head of Dionysus, and was, in an ornamented form, assumed by kings as an emblem of sovereignty.
DĬAETĒTAE (διαιτηταί), or arbitrators, at Athens, were of two kinds; the one public and appointed by lot (κληρωτοί), the other private, and chosen (αἱρετοί) by the parties who referred to them the decision of a disputed point, instead of trying it before a court of justice; the judgments of both, according to Aristotle, being founded on equity rather than law. The number of public arbitrators seems to have been 40, four for each tribe. Their jurisdiction was confined to civil cases.
DĬĀLIS FLĀMEN. [[Flamen].]
DĬĂMASTĪGŌSIS (διαμαστίγωσις), a solemnity performed at Sparta at the festival of Artemis Orthia. Spartan youths were scourged on the occasion at the altar of Artemis, by persons appointed for the purpose, until their blood gushed forth and covered the altar. Many anecdotes are related of the courage and intrepidity with which young Spartans bore the lashes of the scourge; some even died without uttering a murmur at their sufferings, for to die under the strokes was considered as honourable a death as that on the field of battle.
DĬĂPSĔPHĬSIS (διαψήφισις), a political institution at Athens, the object of which was to prevent aliens, or such as were the offspring of an unlawful marriage, from assuming the rights of citizens. By this method a trial of spurious citizens was to be held by the demotae, within whose deme intruders were suspected to exist.
DĪĂSĬA (διάσια), a great festival celebrated at Athens, without the walls of the city, in honour of Zeus, surnamed Μειλίχιος. The whole people took part in it, and the wealthier citizens offered victims, while the poorer classes burnt such incense as their country furnished. The diasia took place in the latter half of the month of Anthesterion with feasting and rejoicings, and was, like most other festivals, accompanied by a fair.
DĬCASTĒS (δικαστής), the name of a judge, or rather juryman, at Athens. The conditions of his eligibility were, that he should be a free citizen, in the enjoyment of his full franchise (ἐπιτιμία), and not less than thirty years of age, and of persons so qualified 6,000 were selected by lot for the service of every year. Their appointment took place annually under the conduct of the nine archons and their official scribe; each of these ten personages drew by lot the names of 600 persons of the tribe assigned to him; the whole number so selected was again divided by lot into ten sections of 500 each, together with a supernumerary one, consisting of 1000 persons, from among whom the occasional deficiencies in the sections of 500 might be supplied. To each of the ten sections one of the ten first letters of the alphabet was appropriated as a distinguishing mark, and a small tablet (πινάκιον), inscribed with the letter of the section and the name of the individual, was delivered as a certificate of his appointment to each dicast. Before proceeding to the exercise of his functions, the dicast was obliged to swear the official oath. This oath being taken, and the divisions made as above mentioned, it remained to assign the courts to the several sections of dicasts in which they were to sit. This was not, like the first, an appointment intended to last during the year, but took place under the conduct of the thesmothetae, de novo, every time that it was necessary to impanel a number of dicasts. As soon as the allotment had taken place, each dicast received a staff, on which was painted the letter and the colour of the court awarded him, which might serve both as a ticket to procure admittance, and also to distinguish him from any loiterer that might endeavour clandestinely to obtain a sitting after business had begun. While in court, and probably from the hand of the presiding magistrate (ἡγέμων δικαστηρίου), he received the token or ticket that entitled him to receive his fee (δικαστικόν). This payment is said to have been first instituted by Pericles, and was originally a single obolus; it was increased by Cleon to thrice that amount about the 88th Olympiad.
DĬCĒ (δίκη), signifies generally any proceedings at law by one party directly or mediately against others. The object of all such actions is to protect the body politic, or one or more of its individual members, from injury and aggression; a distinction which has in most countries suggested the division of all causes into two great classes, the public and the private, and assigned to each its peculiar form and treatment. At Athens the first of these was implied by the terms public δίκαι, or ἀγῶνες, or still more peculiarly by γραφαί; causes of the other class were termed private δίκαι, or ἀγῶνες, or simply δίκαι in its limited sense. In a δίκη, only the person whose rights were alleged to be affected, or the legal protector (κύριος) of such person, if a minor or otherwise incapable of appearing suo jure, was permitted to institute an action as plaintiff; in public causes, with the exception of some few in which the person injured or his family were peculiarly bound and interested to act, any free citizen, and sometimes, when the state was directly attacked, almost any alien, was empowered to do so. The court fees, called prytaneia, were paid in private but not in public causes, and a public prosecutor that compromised the action with the defendant was in most cases punished by a fine of a thousand drachmae and a modified disfranchisement, while there was no legal impediment at any period of a private lawsuit to the reconciliation of the litigant parties.—The proceedings in the δίκη were commenced by a summons (πρόσκλησις) to the defendant to appear on a certain day before the proper magistrate (εἰσαγωγεύς), and there answer the charges preferred against him. This summons was often served by the plaintiff in person, accompanied by one or two witnesses (κλητῆρες), whose names were endorsed upon the declaration (λῆξις or ἔγκλημα). Between the service of the summons and appearance of the parties before the magistrate, it is very probable that the law prescribed the intervention of a period of five days. If both parties appeared, the proceedings commenced by the plaintiff putting in his declaration, and at the same time depositing his share of the court fees (πρυτανεῖα), which were trifling in amount, but the non-payment of which was a fatal objection to the further progress of a cause. When these were paid, it became the duty of the magistrate, if no manifest objection appeared on the face of the declaration, to cause it to be written out on a tablet, and exposed for the inspection of the public on the wall or other place that served as the cause list of his court. The magistrate then appointed a day for the further proceedings of the anacrisis [[Anacrisis]]. If the plaintiff failed to appear at the anacrisis, the suit, of course, fell to the ground; if the defendant made default, judgment passed against him. An affidavit might at this, as well as at other periods of the action, be made in behalf of a person unable to attend upon the given day, and this would, if allowed, have the effect of postponing further proceedings (ὑπωμοσία); it might, however, be combated by a counter-affidavit, to the effect that the alleged reason was unfounded or otherwise insufficient (ἀνθυπωμοσία); and a question would arise upon this point, the decision of which, when adverse to the defendant, would render him liable to the penalty of contumacy. The plaintiff was in this case said ἐρήμην ἑλεῖν; the defendant, ἐρήμην ὀφλεῖν, δίκην being the word omitted in both phrases. The anacrisis began with the affidavit of the plaintiff (προωμοσία), then followed the answer of the defendant (ἀντωμοσία or ἀντιγραφή), then the parties produced their respective witnesses, and reduced their evidence to writing, and put in originals, or authenticated copies, of all the records, deeds, and contracts that might be useful in establishing their case, as well as memoranda of offers and requisitions then made by either side (προκλήσεις). The whole of the documents were then, if the cause took a straightforward course (εὐθυδικία), enclosed on the last day of the anacrisis in a casket (ἐχῖνος), which was sealed, and entrusted to the custody of the presiding magistrate, till it was produced and opened at the trial. During the interval no alteration in its contents was permitted, and accordingly evidence that had been discovered after the anacrisis was not producible at the trial.—In some causes, the trial before the dicasts was by law appointed to come on within a given time; in such as were not provided for by such regulations, we may suppose that it would principally depend upon the leisure of the magistrate. Upon the court being assembled, the magistrate called on the cause, and the plaintiff opened his case. At the commencement of the speech, the proper officer (ὁ ἐφ’ ὕδωρ) filled the clepsydra with water. As long as the water flowed from this vessel the orator was permitted to speak; if, however, evidence was to be read by the officer of the court, or a law recited, the water was stopped till the speaker recommenced. The quantity of water, or, in other words, the length of the speeches, was different in different causes. After the speeches of the advocates, which were in general two on each side, and the incidental reading of the documentary and other evidence, the dicasts proceeded to give their judgment by ballot.—When the principal point at issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff, there followed in many cases a further discussion as to the fine or punishment to be inflicted on the defendant (παθεῖν ἢ ἀποτῖσαι). All actions were divided into two classes,—ἀγῶνες ἀτίμητοι, suits not to be assessed, in which the fine, or other penalty, was determined by the laws; and ἀγῶνες τιμητοί, suits to be assessed, in which the penalty had to be fixed by the judges. If the suit was an ἀγῶν τιμητος, the plaintiff generally mentioned in the pleadings the punishment which he considered the defendant deserved (τίμημα); and the defendant was allowed to make a counter-assessment (ἀντιτιμᾶσθαι or ὑποτιμᾶσθαι), and to argue before the judges why the assessment of the plaintiff ought to be changed or mitigated. In certain causes, which were determined by the laws, any of the judges was allowed to propose an additional assessment (προστίμημα); the amount of which, however, appears to have been usually fixed by the laws. Thus, in certain cases of theft, the additional penalty was fixed at five days’ and nights’ imprisonment. Upon judgment being given in a private suit, the Athenian law left its execution very much in the hands of the successful party, who was empowered to seize the moveables of his antagonist as a pledge for the payment of the money, or institute an action of ejectment (ἐξούλης) against the refractory debtor. The judgment of a court of dicasts was in general decisive (δίκη αὐτοτελής); but upon certain occasions, as, for instance, when a gross case of perjury or conspiracy could be proved by the unsuccessful party to have operated to his disadvantage, the cause, upon the conviction of such conspirators or witnesses, might be commenced de novo.