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

1132 TIMEMA. TIMEM A.
in the laws in Demosth. c. Timnoc. 733, it is de- punishment to say what he could in extenuatiosr
dared, that if a fine be imposed, the party shall of his offence, or to appeal to the mercy of his
be imprisoned until it is paid. judges. This was frequently done for him by his
In civil causes the sentence by which the Court relations and friends; and it was not unusual for
awarded redress to the injured party would vary a man, who thought himself in peril of life or freeaccording to the nature of his complaint. Where dom, to produce his wife and children in court,
he sought to recover an estate in land, or a -house, to excite compassion. (Demosth. c. Mid. 573, 575,
or any specific thing, as a ring, a horse, a slave, c. A ristocr. 793, de Fels. Leg. 431, 434, c. Onetor.
nothing further was required, than to determine to 878, c. Apsob. 834; Aristoph. Vesp. 560.) After
whom the estate, the house, or the thing demanded, both parties had been heard, the dicasts were called
of right belonged. [HERES (GREEK); OII.tAS upon to give their verdict.
DIKE.] The same would be the case in an action Here occurs a question, about which there has
of debt, Xpeovs &iK7q, where a sum certain was de- been much difference of opinion, and which it is
manded; as for instance, where the plaintiff had impossible to determine with any certainty; viz.
lent a sum of money to the defendant, and at the whether the dicasts, in giving this verdict, were
trial no question was made as to the amount, but confined to a choice between the estimates of the
the dispute was, whether it was a loan or a gift, opposing parties, or whether they had a discretion
or whether it had been paid or not. So, in an to award what punishment they pleased. Withaction for breach of contract, if by the terms of the out entering upon any controversial discussion, the
contract a certain penalty had been attached to its following appears to the writer the most probable
violation, it would be unnecessary to have an in- view of the matter.
quiry of damages, they being already liquidated by The dicasts had no power of discussing among
the act of the parties themselves. (Demosth. c. themselves, or agreeing upon the fine or penalty to
Dionys. 1291, 1296, et argum.) In these and be awarded. Such power was incompatible with
many other similar cases the trial was a&r71Arosr. their mode of voting by ballot. [PSEPHUS.] At
On the other hand, wherever the damages were in the same time it would be absurd to suppose that
their nature unliquidated, and no provision had the Athenian court had no means of controlling the
been made concerning them either by the law or parties in the exercise of that privilege which the
by the agreement of the parties, they were to be law gave them, or that it was the common practice
assessed by the dicasts. for the parties to submit widely different estimates
The following was the course of proceeding in to the dicasts, and leave them no alternative but
the Tqnreol'ay? cves. the extreme of severity on the one side, and the
Let us suppose that on a criminal prosecution extreme of mercy on the other. Many passages
the defendant had been found guilty. The super- in the orators are opposed to such a view, and
intending magistrate then called upon the pro- especially the words of Demosthenes, c. Tinzoer.
secutor to say, what punishment he proposed to be 737.
inflicted on him, and what he had to say there- The course of proceeding seems to have been as
upon. The bill of indictment ([yrAlMa) was follows. The prosecutor usually superscribed his
alway s superscribed with some penalty by the. indictment with the highest penalty which the law
person who preferred it. He was said EirLypd- or the nature of the case would admit of. In the
perOa T1t r7'tpa, and the penalty proposed is called course -of the trial there might be various indicaiErtypa/s,ua. (Demosth. c. Nausim. 985.) We tions on the part of the dicasts of a disposition to
find also the expressions e7rdsmeLY T'7iLugpa, rL-JaeOae favour one side or the other. They often exhibited
Tir pPiEyOYrT,'rit'tT 7roiE7oOati. When a charge their feelings by vehement gestures, clamour, inwas brought not by a private individual, but by a terruption, and questioning of the parties. It
magistrate ex officio, the law required him in like was not unusual for the speakers to make allusions
manner to write down the penalty which he to the punishment before the first verdict had been
thought the case merited. (Delnosth. c. lnAacart. given. (Aesch. c. Timasrch. 12, de Fals. Leg. 48.
1076.) The-prosecutor was now called upon to ed. Steph.; Demosth. c. AJid. 523, c. Boeot. de
support the allegation in the indictment, and for dot. 1022, 1024, c. Spud. 1033, c. AlIacart. 1060,
that purpose to mount the platform and address c. Steph. 1128; Platner, Proc. und Klag. vol. i.
the dicasts (aYaCamt'lvE es tri/u7/1a). p. 384.) All this enabled both parties to feel the
Hlere he said whatever occurred to him as likely pulse of the court before the time had arrived for
to aggravate the charge, or increase the dicasts the second verdict. If the prosecutor saw that the
against his opponents. He was not bound, how- dicasts were greatly incensed against his opponent,
ever, to abide by the proposal made in the bill, but and he himself was not mercifully inclined,_ he
ilight, if he pleased (with the consent of the court) would persist in asking for the highest penalty.
ask for a lower penalty than he had demanded If lie was himself disposed to be merciful, or
before. This was often done at the request of the thought that the dicasts were, he would relax in
defendant himself, or of his friends; sometimes his demand. Similar views would prevent the defrom motives of humanity; and sometimes from fendant from asking for too small a penalty, or
prudential considerations. If the accused sub- would induce him to effect a compromise (if posmnitted to the punishment proposed on the other sible) with his opponent. We may reasonably
side, there was no further dispute; if he thought suppose, that it was competent for the prosecutor
it too severe, he made a counter proposition, nam- to mitigate his demand at any time before the
ing the penalty (commonly some pecuniary fine) magistrate called on the dicasts to divide; but not
which he considered would satisfy the demands of after, without the consent of the court. (Demosth.
justice. He was then said vmrrLTuatOai, or ieavsr c. Nicostrat. 1252, 1254, c. Tleocrin. 1343, c.
r~i u(Oat. (Demosth. c. Timocr. 743, c. Nicostr. Neaer. 1347.) If the parties were endeavouring
1252; Aesch. dce Fals. Leg. 29, ed. Steph.) He to come to an arrangement, the court would give
was allowed to addreU the court in mitigation of them a reasonable tunle for that propose; and there