Scanned text contains errors.
: KAKEGO'RIAS DIKE' (ica^poyias was an action for abusive language in the Attic courts. This action is likewise called Katcyyopiov Si/cTj (Dem. c. Mid. p. 544), AotSoptas Siicr) (Si&Kow AoiSopms, Aristoph. Vesp. 1207), and KaKoXoyias slkvi. This action could be brought against an individual who applied to another certain abusive epithets, such as av8p6(j)0isos, irarpaXoias, &c., which were included under the general name of aTToppyra. [aporrheta.] It was no justification that these words were spoken in anger. (Lys. c. Theomn. pp. 372, 373.) By a law of Sol on it was also forbidden to speak evil of the dead; and if a person did so, he was liable to this action, which could be brought against him by the nearest relation of the deceased. (Dem. c. Leptin. p. 488, c. Boeot. p. 1022 ; Plut. Sol. c. 21.) If an individual abused any one who was engaged in any public office, the offender not only suffered the ordinary punishment, but incurred the loss of his rights as a citizen (cmjiua), since the state was considered to have been insulted. (Dem. c. Mid. p. 524.)
If the defendant was convicted, he had to pay a fine of 500 drachmae to the plaintiff. (Isoc. c. Loch. p. 396 ; Lys. c. TJieomn. p. 354.) Plutarch, however, mentions that, according to one of Solon's laws, whoever spoke evil of a person in the temples, courts of justice, public offices, or in public festivals, had to pay five drachmae ; but as Platner (Process bei den Attikern, vol. ii. p. 192) has observed, the law of Solon was probably changed, and the heavier fine of 500 drachmae substituted in the place of the smaller sum. Demosthenes, .in his oration against Meidias (p. 543) speaks of a fine of 1000 drachmae ; but this is probably to be .explained by supposing that Demosthenes brought two actions KaKrjyopias ; one on his own account, and the other on account of the insults which Meidias had committed against his mother and sister. This action was probably brought before the thesrnothetae (Dem. c. Mid. p. 544), to whom the related vSpecas ypafyr) belonged. The two speeches of Lysias against Theomnestus were spoken in an action of this kind.
KAKOLOGIAS DIKE. [kakegorias dike.]
KAKOSIS (tfafcwcris), in the language of the Attic law, does not signify every kind of ill-treatment, but
1. The ill-treatment of parents by their children (ndicMffis 7oyeW). 2. Of women by their husbands (icdKcaoris yvvaiK&v}. 3. Of heiresses (/ca-Ktoffis tow eVi/cA^pwj>). 4. Of orphans and widows by their guardians or any other persons (/ca/ccocrts tcov optyavcov Kal x^peucroutrofi/ yvvaiK&v).
1. KaKcacns yov4u>v was committed by those who struck their parents, or applied abusive epithets to them, or refused them the means of support when they were able to afford it, or did not bury them after their death and pay them proper honours. (Aristoph. Av. 757,1356 ; Suidas, s. v. TleXapyiKbs vojjios.} It was no justification for children that their parents had treated them badly. If, however, they were illegitimate, or had not received a proper education from their parents, they could not be prosecuted for icdfcaxris. (Meier, Att. Process, p. 288.)
2. Ka/ccotm yvvaiK&v was committed by hus-bands who ill-treated their wives in any manner or had intercourse with other women (Diog. Laert. iv. 17; compare Plut. Alcib. 8), or denied their
KAKOTECHNION DIKE. 317
wives the marriage duties ; for by .a law of Solon, the husband was bound to visit his wife three times every month, at least if she was an heiress. (Plut. Sol. 20, Erotic. 23.) In the comedy of Cratinus, called the " Wine Flask" (TluriVr?), Comedy was represented as the wife of Cratinus, who brought an action against him because he neglected her and devoted all his attention to the wine flask. (Schol. ad Aristoph. Equit. 399.)
3. KaKwcris rcov eiriKXyptov was committed by the nearest relatives of poor heiresses, who neither married them themselves, nor gave them a dowry in order to marry them to persons of their own rank in life (Dein. c. Macart. p. 1076 ; Harpocr. s. s. 'ETTiSi/cos1, &yJT€s ; Suid. Phot. s. v. ®7)T€vs) ; or, if they married them themselves, did not perform the marriage duties. (Plut. Sol. 20.)
4. Ka/cwcns rwv optyavwv Kal xypev(Tovtftt>v yv-vaiK&v was committed by those who injured in any way either orphans or widows, both of whom were considered to be in an especial manner under the protection of the chief archon. (Dem. c. Macart. p. 1076; 6 dpx&Vi ogtis eTre/xeAeTro r&v xyipuv Kal r&v optyav&v, Ulpian. ad Demosth. c. Timocr.) The speech of Isaeus on the Inheritance of Hagnia,s, is a defence against an eicrcryyeAia KaKc6<rea>s of this kind.
All these cases of KaKtotfis belonged to the jurisdiction of the chief archon (apx^? eVcoyu/xos). If a person wronged in any way orphans, heiresses, or widows, the archon could inflict a fine upon them himself; or if he considered the person deserving of greater punishment, could bring him before the heiiaea. (Dem. c. Macart. p. 1076. Lex.} Any private individual could also accuse parties guilty of /ca/coxm by means of laying an information (elcrayyeXia) before the chief archon, though sometimes the accuser proceeded by means of a regular indictment (ypatyfy, with an avaKptcrts before the archon. (Dem. c. Pantaenet. p. 980.) Those who accused persons guilty of Ka/ca><m incurred no danger, as was usually the case, if the defendant was acquitted, and they did not obtain the fifth part of the votes of the dicasts. (Harpocr. s. v. EiVayyeAm.)
The punishment does not appear to have been fixed for the different cases of /ca/cco<ns, but it was generally severe. Those found guilty of itdKuaris
.l_7 \i «- CJ «/
yoj/eow lost their civil rights (cmjiua), but were allowed to retain their property (ovroi &ti/xoi ijarav
Myst. 36 ; Xen. Mem. ii. 2. § 13)': but if the Kaxuxris consisted in beating their parents, the hands of the offenders might even be cut off. (Meursius, Them. Attic, i. 2.)
f KAKOTECHNION DIKE (/m/corex^!/ Si/c??), corresponds in some degree with an action for subornation of perjury. It might be instituted against a party to a previous suit, whose witnesses had already been convicted of falsehood in an action. $evb'oua.pTvpi£)j/. (Harpocr. s. v. ; Dem. c. Ev. and Mnes. p. 1139. 11.) It has been also surmised that this proceeding was available against the same party, when persons had subscribed themselves falsely as smnmoners in the declaration or indictment in a previous suit (Meier, Att. Proc. p. 385); and if Plato's authority with respect to the terms of Attic law can be considered conclusive, other cases of conspiracy and contrivance may have borne this title. (Plat. Leg. xi. p. 936, e.) With respect to the court into which these causes