Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

RAKOSIS. KAKOTECHNION DIKE. 1217
RAKEGO'RIAS DIKE' (tcatclpoylas B[ctr), wives-the marriage duties; for by a law of Solon,
was an action for abusive language in the Attic the husband was bound to visit his wife three
courts. This action is likewise called eaKticryopiov times every month, at least if she was all heiress.
outscs (Dem. c. Alid. p. 544), Aoslopias aKt1s (3u(Kwso (Plut. Sol. 20, Erotic. 23.) In the comedy of:otaopias, Aristoph. VesT. 1207), and KaKeooyi1oas Cratinus, called the "Wine Flask" (EvTryvs),
h'c1. This action could be brought against an Comedy was represented as the wife of Cratinus,
individual who applied to another certain abusive who brought an action against him because he negepithets, such as &av'p6qoo'os, 7rarpaXoeas, &c., lected her and devoted all his attention to the
which were included under the general name of wine flask. (Schol. ad AristoplI. Equit. 399.)
a7roppOsTa. [APORRHETA.] It was no justifica- 3. Kdasc'ws Tov erLcXSpw, was committed by
tion that these words were spoken in anger. (Lys. the nearest relatives of poor heiresses, who neither
c. T/leomn. pp. 372, 373.) By a law of Solon it married them themselves, nor gave them a dowry
was also forbidden to speak evil of the dead; and if in crder to marry them to persons of their ownl
a person did so, he was liable to this action, which rank in life (Dem. c. M5acart. p. 1076; Harpocr. s. S.
could be brought against him by the nearest rela-'EsirL'sKos, 0FTES; Sulid. Phot. S.. 07. vTvs); or, if
tion of the deceased. (Dem. c. Leptin. p. 488, c. they married them themselves, did not perform the
Boeot. p. 1022; Plut. Sol. c. 21.) If an individual marriage duties. (Plut. Sol. 20.)
abused anly one who was engaged in any public 4. KdKUccous TOYwv oppaCt [ral XPscOpevUou','yuoffice, the offender not only suffered the ordinary sal Site' was committed by those who injured il
punishment, but incurred the loss of his rights as a any way either orphans or widows, both of whom
citizen (&,t/fLea), since the state was considered to were considered to be in an especial manner under
have been insulted. (Dem. c. M3lid. p. 524.) the protection of the chief archon. (Dem. c. Moacart.
If the defendant was convicted, he had to pay a p. 1076; 6 PXap,, oraLs r e. ire/EAET'O TyS' XtlpSv'
fine of 500 drachmae to the plaintiff. (Isoc. c. Ka'l Toi, hpsparv, Ulpian. acd Demzost/. c. 7Tioocr.)
Loch. p. 396; Lys. c. Theoanz. p. 354.) Plutarch, The speech of Isaeus on the Inheritance of Hagnias,
however, mentions that, according to one of Solon's is a defence against an eofayyeXia KaIcmcoeos of
laws, whoever spoke evil of a person in the temples, this kind.
courts of justice, public offices, or in public festi- All these cases of tcaKcwoos belonged to the
vals, had to pay five drachmae; but as Platner, jurisdiction of the chief archon (appXov Ercw'vvuos).
(Process bei den Attikern, vol. ii. p. 192) has ob- If a person wronged in any way orphans, heiresses,
served, the law of Solon was probably changed, or widows, the archon could inflict a fine upon them
and the heavier fine of 500 drachmae substituted himself; or if he considered the person deserving
in the place of the smaller sum. Demosthenes, of greater punishment, could bring him before the
in his oration against Meidias (p. 543) speaks of a heliaea. (Demn. c. Mllacart. p. 1076. Lex.) Any
fine of 1000 drachmae; but this is probably to be private individual could also accuse parties guilty
explained by supposing that Demosthenes brought of eKdcacW Ls by means of laying an information
two actions Kacyyoptas; one on his own account, (eslo'aTyeXia) before the chief archon, though someand the other on account of the insults which times the accuser proceeded by means of a regular
bleidias had committed against his mother and indictment (ypaqe/), with an a&va'Kptoas before the
sister. This action was probably brought before the archon. (Dem. c. Plantaeaet. p. 980.) Those who
thesmothetae (Dem. c. Mid. p. 544), to whom the accused persons guilty of KasKcires incurred no
related VspsCes ypao7e belonged. The two speeches danger, as was usually the case, if the defendant
of Lysias against Theomnestus were spoken in anl was acquitted, and they did not obtain the fifth
action of this kind. part of the votes of the dicasts. (Harpocr. s. v.
KAKOLO'GIAS DIKE'. [KAicnGOIArAs EitvayseX''a.)
DIKE.] The punishment does not appear to have been
KAKO'SIS (ntdccowrs), in the language of the fixed for the different cases of KateweoS, but it was
Attic law, does not signify every kind of ill-treat- generally severe. Those found guilty of dicceweos
ment, lut yovEou, lost their civil rights (&m-l[ia), but were ali. The ill-treatment of parents by their children lowed to retain their property (oTo'tL CTraon ieay.(1cacolens yoiEvou). 2. Of women by their hus-'ram e& aTea, Ta be Xp'i.c/ara esXoe, Andoc. De
bands (secdawstms yvyaltcx,). 3. Of heiresses (cd- ML yst. 36; Xen. 1Mesa. ii. 2. ~ 13): but if the
KC05rs TSV' ni'elApoY). 4. Of orphans and widows Kacicoorts consisted in beating their parents, the
by their guardians or any other persons (cadscoes hands of the offenders might even be cut off.
CnV' opqpacv ictalh X7pwusoveo-C 7vyvvael1CCe). (Mearsius, Tlesn. Attic. i. 2.)
1. KdKoors 7yOov&o was committed by those who KAKOTECHNION DIKE (1aecove'Xm&xs
struck their parents, or applied abusive epithets to tiKe), corresponds in some degree with an action
them, or refused them the means of support when for subornation of perjury. It might be instituted
they were able to afford it, or did not bury them against a party to a previous suit, whose witnesses
after their death and pay them proper honours. had already been convicted of falsehood in an action
(Aristoph. Av. 757, 1356; Suidas, s. v. rleXapymsbs EVso60/.taprvp t&V. (Harpocr. s. v.; Dem. c. Lv.,Od/os.) It was no justification for children that and MAzes. p. 1139. 11.) It has been also surtheir parentshad treated them badly. If, however, mrised that this proceeding was available against
they were illegitimate, or had not received a proper the same party, when persons had subscribed themeducation from their parents, they could not be selves falsely as summoners in the declaration or
prosecuted for accoiKcss. (Meier, Att. Process, p. indictment in a previous suit (Meier, Att. Proc.
288.) p. 385); and if Plato's authority with respect to
2. Katcoois,yyvsasutcsv was committed by hus- the termss of Attic law can be considered conclubands who ill-treated their wives in any manner sive, other cases of conspiracy and contrivance may
or had intercourse with other women (Diog. Labrt. have borne this title. (Piat. Leg. xi. p. 936, e.)
iv. 17; compare Pltit. Alcib. 8), or denied their With respect to the court into which these causep