), in its most extended sense, is almost a synonym of
but always includes the notion of
a dispute between
rival claimants, not an action by
another. In purely political questions,
we find the word applied to arguments which of two parties were to get the
credit or bear the blame of what had happened (Aeschin. Ctes.
§ 146; Dem. de Chers.
p. 103.57). The phrase
ἐν τοῖς φίλοις διαδικάσασθαι
applied to a settlement out of court (Dem. c. Onet.
864.2). Technically, diadicasia denotes the proceedings in a contest for
preference between two or more rival parties, either as to the possession of
property or as to exemption from personal or pecuniary liabilities. To the
former class (rights or privileges) belong cases of disputed inheritance
(Dem. c. Leochar.
p. 1082.7); of contests for priesthoods or
temple property, several of which are recorded by the grammarians; the
claims of private creditors upon a confiscated estate (Bekk.
p. 236); and the contests between informers claiming
rewards offered for the discovery of crimes (Andoc. de Myst.
§ 28). The latter class (burdens) includes cases like the ANTIDOSIS; questions as to who should undertake a
trierarchy or a choregia (Xen. Rep.
, § § 4, 5; Dem. c.
ii. p. 841.17), or as to who was to be held responsible for
debts due to the state (Dem. c. Timocr.
p. 704.13; c.
Everg. et Mnes.
p. 1147, § § 26-32). The
essential distinction between diadicasia and the ordinary δίκαι
is, that all the claimants are similarly
situated with respect to the subject of dispute, and no longer classified as
plaintiffs and defendants. As far as forms are concerned, we are not told
that these suits differed from others. (Meier, Att. Process,
ed. Lipsius, p. 367 ff.; Platner, Klagen und Process,
ff.; Caillemer, Droit de Succession,
p. 161 ff.; Thalheim,
§ 11 = § 66 Hermann.)