AIKIAS DIKE
AIKIAS DIKE (
αἰκίας δίκη), a
private action for assault, thus distinguished from the more serious
ὕβρεως γραφὴ) or public prosecution
for the same class of offences. The Athenian law, in case of offences
against the person, as in these against property [cf. KLOPES DIKE] gave the injured party alternative modes of obtaining
redress by action for damages or by criminal information. If the plaintiff
selected the former, the defendant would only be condemned to pay a fine,
which the plaintiff received; but if he chose the latter, the accused might
be punished even with death, and the pecuniary penalty, if any, went to the
state.
In bringing this action it was necessary to prove two facts. First, that the
defendant had struck the plaintiff, who must have been a free man, with the
intention of insulting him (
ἐφ᾽ ῞υβρει);
but this intention was presumed, unless the defendant could prove that he
only struck the plaintiff in jest. Thus Ariston, after proving that he had
been struck by Conon and his sons, tells the dicasts that the defence will
try to pass it off as mere practical joking and young men's horse-play (Dem.
c. Cnono. p. 1261, § § 13, 14).
Secondly, it was necessary to prove that the defendant struck the plaintiff
first, and did not merely return the blows which had been given by the
plaintiff (
ἡ δὲ αἰκία τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, ὃς ἂν
ἄρξῃ χειρῶν ἀδίκων πρότερος, Dem.
c.
Everg. p. 1151.40; sometimes
ἀδίκων
ἄρχειν only).
This action, it is stated, was brought before the Forty (
οἱ τετταράκοντα, Dem.
adv.
Pantaen. p. 976.33). But the summary jurisdiction of the Forty we
know to have been extremely limited; and when we read that they only decided
money claims up to the amount of ten drachmas, it is evident that the
assaults upon which they pronounced judgment could only have been of minor
importance (so Schömann,
Antiq. p. 473; cf. TETTARACONTA, HOI). They had, however, the
ἡγεμονία δικαστηρίου, and could bring
graver matters before a jury; and it is evident that the case of Conon, in
which exemplary damages are demanded, was of this sort: we find the usual
ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταὶ in the opening
words.
The sum of money to be paid by the defendant as damages was not fixed by the
law, but settled in court. It was thus an assessed action (
ἀγὼν τιμητὸς), and resembled the procedure in
public causes. The speech of Isocrates against Lochites, as well as that of
Demosthenes against Conon, was spoken in an action of this kind; and we
learn from it that for the further protection of the citizens against
assaults, both private and public prosecutions for this class of offences
were
ἄνευ παρακαταβολῆς, or excused from
the payment of
πρυτανεῖα or caution-money
(Isocr.
Or. 20.3). It would seem however that the party who
lost his suit, whether plaintiff or defendant, was liable to pay
πρυτανεῖα in addition to damages and
ἐπωβελία (Dem.
c. Everg. p.
1158.64). In the speech against Lochites, as in that against Conon, there is
perhaps intentional confusion of
αἰκία and
ὕβρις (Jebb,
Att. Or.
2.214, n.). In the case of slaves there was no action for
αἰκία, but the owner of an injured slave might
proceed either by
ὕβρεως γραφὴ or
βλαβῆς δίκη. (Lysias, fr. 44; Photius,
p. 614, 10; Harpocrat. s. v.
αἰκίας: Suid.
s. v.
ὕβρις: Meier,
Att.
Process, pp. 81, 547 ff.; Böckh,
P. E. pp.
364, 372, 374; Platner,
Process and Klagen, 2.193 ff.;
Schömann,
Antiq. 473.)
[
W.S] [
W.W]
