previous next


APOSTA´SIOU DIKE´ (ἀποστασίου δίκη) This is the only private suit which came, as far as we know, under the exclusive jurisdiction of the polemarch. (Aristot. de Ath. Rep. quoted by Harpocrat.) It could be brought against none but a freedman (ἀπελεύθερος), and the only prosecutor permitted to appear was the citizen to whom he had been indebted for his liberty, unless this privilege was transmitted to the sons of such former master. The tenor of the accusation was, that there had been a default in duty to the prosecutor; but what attentions might be claimed from the freedman, we are not informed. It is said, however, that the greatest delict of this kind was the selection of a patron (προστάτης) other than the former master. If convicted, the defendant was publicly sold (Dem. c. Aristog. p. 790.77); but if he was acquitted, the unprosperous connexion ceased for ever, and the freedman was entitled to the full privileges of a μέτοικος. The patron could also summarily punish the above-mentioned delinquencies of his freedman by private incarceration without any legal award (Pollux, 8.35; Harpocrat., Suid. s. v. ὰποστασίον).

The ἀποστασίου δίκη, against an ἀπελεύθερος, should be carefully distinguished from the γραφὴ ἀπροστασίου, a public action brought against a μέτοικος. Both are mentioned in Demosth. c. Lacrit. p. 940.48.

[J.S.M] [W.W]

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