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_.
DICTĀTOR, an extraordinary magistrate at Rome. The name is of
Latin origin, and the office probably existed in many Latin towns
before it was introduced into Rome. We find it in Lanuvium even
in very late times. At Rome this magistrate was originally called
_magister populi_ and not _dictator_, and in the sacred books he
was always designated by the former name down to the latest times.
On the establishment of the Roman republic the government of the
state was entrusted to two consuls, that the citizens might be the
better protected against the tyrannical exercise of the supreme
power. But it was soon felt that circumstances might arise in
which it was of importance for the safety of the state that the
government should be vested in the hands of a single person, who
should possess for a season absolute power, and from whose decision
there should be no appeal to any other body. Thus it came to pass
that in B.C. 501, nine years after the expulsion of the Tarquins,
the dictatorship (_dictatura_) was instituted. By the original law
respecting the appointment of a dictator (_lex de dictatore creando_)
no one was eligible for this office unless he had previously been
consul. We find, however, a few instances in which this law was not
observed.--When a dictator was considered necessary, the senate
passed a senatus consultum, that one of the consuls should nominate
(_dicere_) a dictator; and without a previous decree of the senate
the consuls had not the power of naming a dictator. The nomination or
proclamation of the dictator was always made by the consul, probably
without any witnesses, between midnight and morning, and with the
observance of the auspices (_surgens_ or _oriens nocte silentio
dictatorem dicebat_). The technical word for this nomination or
proclamation was _dicere_ (seldom _creare_ or _facere_). Originally
the dictator was of course a patrician. The first plebeian dictator
was C. Marcius Rutilus, nominated in B.C. 356 by the plebeian consul
M. Popillius Laenas. The reasons which led to the appointment of
a dictator, required that there should be only one at a time. The
dictators that were appointed for carrying on the business of the
state were said to be nominated _rei gerundae causa_, or sometimes
_seditionis sedandae causa_; and upon them, as well as upon the
other magistrates, the imperium was conferred by a _Lex Curiata_.
The dictatorship was limited to six months, and no instances occur
in which a person held this office for a longer time, for the
dictatorships of Sulla and Caesar are of course not to be taken into
account. On the contrary, though a dictator was appointed for six
months, he often resigned his office long previously, immediately
after he had dispatched the business for which he had been appointed.
As soon as the dictator was nominated, a kind of suspension took
place with respect to the consuls and all the other magistrates,
with the exception of the tribuni plebis. The regular magistrates
continued, indeed, to discharge the duties of their various offices
under the dictator, but they were no longer independent officers,
but were subject to the higher imperium of the dictator, and obliged
to obey his orders in every thing. The superiority of the dictator’s
power to that of the consuls consisted chiefly in the three following
points--greater independence of the senate, more extensive power of
punishment without any appeal (_provocatio_) from their sentence
to the people, and irresponsibility. To these three points, must
of course be added that he was not fettered by a colleague. We may
naturally suppose that the dictator would usually act in unison with
the senate; but it is expressly stated that in many cases where the
consuls required the co-operation of the senate, the dictator could
act on his own responsibility. That there was originally no appeal
from the sentence of the dictator is certain, and accordingly the
lictors bore the axes in the fasces before them even in the city,
as a symbol of their absolute power over the lives of the citizens,
although by the Valerian law the axes had disappeared from the fasces
of the consuls. Whether, however, the right of _provocatio_ was
afterwards given cannot be determined. It was in consequence of the
great and irresponsible power possessed by the dictatorship, that we
find it frequently compared with the regal dignity, from which it
only differed in being held for a limited time.--There were however
a few limits to the power of the dictator. 1. The most important was
that which we have mentioned above, that the period of his office was
only six months. 2. He had not power over the treasury, but could
only make use of the money which was granted him by the senate. 3.
He was not allowed to leave Italy, since he might thus easily become
dangerous to the republic; though the case of Atilius Calatinus in
the first Punic war forms an exception to this rule. 4. He was not
allowed to ride on horseback at Rome, without previously obtaining
the permission of the people; a regulation apparently capricious,
but perhaps adopted that he might not bear too great a resemblance
to the kings, who were accustomed to ride.--The insignia of the
dictator were nearly the same as those of the kings in earlier times;
and of the consuls subsequently. Instead however of having only
twelve lictors, as was the case with the consuls, he was preceded by
twenty-four bearing the secures as well as the fasces. The _sella
curulis_ and _toga praetexta_ also belonged to the dictator.--The
preceding account of the dictatorship applies more particularly to
the dictator rei gerundae causa; but dictators were also frequently
appointed, especially when the consuls were absent from the city,
to perform certain acts, which could not be done by any inferior
magistrate. These dictators had little more than the name; and as
they were only appointed to discharge a particular duty, they had to
resign immediately that duty was performed. The occasions on which
such dictators were appointed, were principally:--1. For the purpose
of holding the comitia for the elections (_comitiorum habendorum
causa_). 2. For fixing the _clavus annalis_ in the temple of Jupiter
(_clavi figendi causa_) in times of pestilence or civil discord,
because the law said that this ceremony was to be performed by the
_praetor maximus_, and after the institution of the dictatorship
the latter was regarded as the highest magistracy in the state. 3.
For appointing holidays (_feriarum constituendarum causa_) on the
appearance of prodigies, and for officiating at the public games
(_ludorum faciendorum causa_), the presidency of which belonged
to the consuls or praetors. 4. For holding trials (_quaestionibus
exercendis_.) 5. And on one occasion, for filling up vacancies in
the senate (_legendo senatui_).--Along with the dictator there was
always a _magister equitum_, the nomination of whom was left to the
choice of the dictator, unless the senatus consultum specified,
as was sometimes the case, the name of the person who was to be
appointed. The magister equitum had, like the dictator, to receive
the imperium by a lex curiata. The dictator could not be without
a magister equitum, and, consequently, if the latter died during
the six months of the dictatorship, another had to be nominated
in his stead. The magister equitum was subject to the imperium of
the dictator, but in the absence of his superior he became his
representative, and exercised the same powers as the dictator. The
magister equitum was originally, as his name imports, the commander
of the cavalry, while the dictator was at the head of the legions,
the infantry; and the relation between them was in this respect
similar to that which subsisted between the king and the tribunus
celerum. Dictators were only appointed so long as the Romans had
to carry on wars in Italy. A solitary instance of the nomination
of a dictator for the purpose of carrying on war out of Italy has
been already mentioned. The last dictator rei gerundae causa was M.
Junius Pera, in B.C. 216. From that time dictators were frequently
appointed for holding the elections down to B.C. 202, but after
that year the dictatorship disappears altogether.--After a lapse of
120 years, Sulla caused himself to be appointed dictator in B.C.
82, _reipublicae constituendae causa_, but neither his dictatorship
nor that of Caesar is to be compared with the genuine office. Soon
after Caesar’s death the dictatorship was abolished for ever by a
lex proposed by the consul Antonius. During the time, however, that
the dictatorship was in abeyance, a substitute was invented for it,
whenever the circumstances of the republic required the adoption of
extraordinary measures, by the senate investing the consuls with
dictatorial power. This was done by the well-known formula, _Videant_
or _dent operam consules, ne quid respublica detrimenti capiat_.
DICTYNNĬA (δικτύννια), a festival with sacrifices, celebrated
at Cydonia in Crete, in honour of Artemis, surnamed Δίκτυννα or
Δικτύνναια, from δίκτυον, a hunter’s net.
DĬES (ἡμέρα), a day. The name _dies_ was applied, like our word day,
to the time during which, according to the notions of the ancients,
the sun performed his course around the earth, and this time they
called the civil day (_dies civilis_, in Greek νυχθήμερον, because
it included both night and day). The natural day (_dies naturalis_),
or the time from the rising to the setting of the sun, was likewise
designated by the name dies. The civil day began with the Greeks
at the setting of the sun, and with the Romans at midnight. At the
time of the Homeric poems the natural day was divided into three
parts. The first, called ἠώς, began with sunrise, and comprehended
the whole space of time during which light seemed to be increasing,
_i.e._ till mid-day. The second part was called μέσον ἦμαρ or mid-day,
during which the sun was thought to stand still. The third part bore
the name of δείλη or δείελον ἦμαρ, which derived its name from the
increased warmth of the atmosphere. Among the Athenians the first
and last of the divisions made at the time of Homer were afterwards
subdivided into two parts. The earlier part of the morning was termed
πρωΐ or πρῲ τῆς ἡμέρας: the latter, πληθούσης τῆς ἀγορᾶς, or περὶ
πλήθουσαν ἀγοράν. The μέσον ἦμαρ of Homer was afterwards expressed
by μεσημβρία, μέσον ἡμέρας, or μέση ἡμέρα, and comprehended, as
before, the middle of the day, when the sun seemed neither to rise
nor to decline. The two parts of the afternoon were called δείλη
πρωΐη or πρωΐα, and δείλη ὀψίη or ὀψία. This division continued to
be observed down to the latest period of Grecian history, though
another more accurate division was introduced at an early period;
for Anaximander, or, according to others, his disciple Anaximenes,
is said to have made the Greeks acquainted with the use of the
Babylonian chronometer or sun-dial (called πόλος, or ὡρολόγιον), by
means of which the natural day was divided into twelve equal spaces
of time. The division of the day most generally observed by the
Romans, was that into _tempus antemeridianum_ and _pomeridianum_,
the _meridies_ itself being only considered as a point at which the
one ended and the other commenced. But as it was of importance that
this moment should be known, an especial officer [ACCENSUS] was
appointed, who proclaimed the time of mid-day. The division of the
day into twelve equal spaces, which were shorter in winter than in
summer, was first adopted when artificial means of measuring time
were introduced among the Romans from Greece. This was about the
year B.C. 291, when L. Papirius Cursor, after the war with Pyrrhus
in southern Italy, brought to Rome an instrument called _solarium
horologium_, or simply _solarium_. But as the solarium had been
made for a different latitude, it showed the time at Rome very
incorrectly. Scipio Nasica, therefore, erected in B.C. 159 a public
clepsydra, which indicated the hours of the night as well as of the
day. Even after the erection of this clepsydra it was customary
for one of the subordinate officers of the praetor to proclaim the
third, sixth, and ninth hours; which shows that the day was, like the
night, divided into four parts, each consisting of three hours.--All
the days of the year were, according to different points of view,
divided by the Romans into different classes. For the purpose of the
administration of justice all days were divided into _dies fasti_
and _dies nefasti_. DIES FASTI were the days on which the praetor
was allowed to administer justice in the public courts; they derived
their name from _fari_ (_fari tria verba_; _do_, _dico_, _addico_).
On some of the dies fasti comitia could be held, but not on all. The
regular _dies fasti_ were marked in the Roman calendar by the letter
F, and their number in the course of the year was 38.--Besides these
there were certain days called _dies intercisi_, on which the praetor
might hold his courts, but not at all hours, so that sometimes one
half of such a day was _fastus_, while the other half was _nefastus_.
Their number was 65 in the year.--DIES NEFASTI were days on which
neither courts of justice nor comitia were allowed to be held, and
which were dedicated to other purposes. The term _dies nefasti_,
which originally had nothing to do with religion, but simply
indicated days on which no courts were to be held, was in subsequent
times applied to religious days in general, as _dies nefasti_ were
mostly dedicated to the worship of the gods.--In a religious point
of view all days of the year were either _dies festi_, or _dies
profesti_, or _dies intercisi_. According to the definition given by
Macrobius, _dies festi_ were dedicated to the gods, and spent with
sacrifices, repasts, games, and other solemnities; _dies profesti_
belonged to men for the administration of their private and public
affairs. _Dies intercisi_ were common between gods and men, that is,
partly devoted to the worship of the gods, partly to the transaction
of ordinary business. _Dies profesti_ were either _dies fasti_, or
_dies comitiales_, that is, days on which comitia were held, or _dies
comperendini_, that is, days to which any action was allowed to be
transferred; or _dies stati_, that is, days set apart for causes
between Roman citizens and foreigners; or _dies proeliales_, that is,
all days on which religion did not forbid the commencement of a war.